The Music Debate Today

[AustinC]

You are asking the wrong question. The right question is, Are some kinds of music "unfruitful works of darkness"?

I like the last question. Answer the latter question with regulative scripture. What legal statement in scripture declares specific forms of music to be "unfruitful works of darkness?"
I will keep pushing you to show the clear regulations that explicitly make your point.

The answer to that is that you have none. You are making vague implications from verses that you imagine make a point for you, but you have none.

Since there is no explicit law on this subject, we are therefore left to our conscience. This means Romans 14 is our guide. I leave you to your conscience and if we ever met, I would not attempt to shake your conscience. This is grace and I would extend it to you.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

I like the last question. Answer the latter question with regulative scripture. What legal statement in scripture declares specific forms of music to be "unfruitful works of darkness?"
I will keep pushing you to show the clear regulations that explicitly make your point.

You do not understand the wisdom of God properly when you claim that He has to declare what the specific forms of music are that are unfruitful works of darkness in order for any kinds of music to be the unfruitful works of darkness.

God is infinitely wiser than we are. You need to submit to His wisdom.

Where does Scripture teach that the unfruitful works of darkness do not include any kinds of music?

What you are continually doing without any Scripture to support your view is begging the question that all kinds of music are pleasing to God, acceptable to Him, and fit for use in worship. You need to provide Scripture that supports your view. You do not have any because there isn't any.

 

[AustinC]

You do not understand the wisdom of God properly when you claim that He has to declare what the specific forms of music are that are unfruitful works of darkness in order for any kinds of music to be the unfruitful works of darkness.

God is far wiser than we are. You need to submit to His wisdom.

Where does Scripture teach that the unfruitful works of darkness do not include any kinds of music?

What you are continually doing without any Scripture to support your view is begging the question that all kinds of music are pleasing to God, acceptable to Him, and fit for use in worship. You need to provide Scripture that supports your view. You do not have any because there isn't any.

No kidding God is far wiser than me. He is also far wiser than you. You provide zero scripture therefore all you are doing is setting your opinion up as the rule of law. In essence you are making yourself a god on this issue and claiming all knowing authority. But, you are merely a man with an opinion and no biblical support.

Follow your conscience. Listen to the music that you think is pleasing to God. I will do the same. Our music that we listen to will be different. I'm good with that. You, on the other hand, seem to demand that everyone conform to your opinion.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

No kidding God is far wiser than me. He is also far wiser than you. You provide zero scripture therefore all you are doing is setting your opinion up as the rule of law. In essence you are making yourself a god on this issue and claiming all knowing authority. But, you are merely a man with an opinion and no biblical support.

Follow your conscience. Listen to the music that you think is pleasing to God. I will do the same. Our music that we listen to will be different. I'm good with that. You, on the other hand, seem to demand that everyone conform to your opinion.

No, you are not paying attention to what I am saying. You assert without any evidence that whatever the unfruitful works of darkness are that we are commanded not to have any fellowship with, they do not include any kinds of music.

How do you know that the unfruitful works of darkness do not include any kinds of music?

 

[AustinC]

No, you are not paying attention to what I am saying. You assert without any evidence that whatever the unfruitful works of darkness are that we are commanded not to have any fellowship with, they do not include any kinds of music.

How do you know that the unfruitful works of darkness do not include any kinds of music?

I am paying full attention. You just won't accept you are being a full fledged legalist.
You use "the unfruitful works of darkness" as your broad brush to mean "whatever I, SMA, thinks unfruitful works of darkness means to me." That's pure legalism on your part.
You have zero scripture. Accept your position as being empty of scripture.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

I am paying full attention. You just won't accept you are being a full fledged legalist.
You use "the unfruitful works of darkness" as your broad brush to mean "whatever I, SMA, thinks unfruitful works of darkness means to me." That's pure legalism on your part.
You have zero scripture. Accept your position as being empty of scripture.

Wrong. The Bible has much to say about the darkness that Paul has in mind:

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

These passages make clear that the unfruitful works of darkness especially include the works of those who are involved in demonic activities because evil supernatural beings are the rulers of the darkness of this world.

You want to claim that even the distinctively occult kinds of music that any and all occultists play and produce are all still only pleasing to God, acceptable to Him, and fit for use in worship even though they are engaging in demonic activities.

You have to prove from the Bible that regardless of who plays any music, regardless of what activities those people are involved in, etc, all their music is still pleasing to God and none of it is an unfruitful work of darkness of people who are engaged in wicked demonic activities.

 

[AustinC]

Wrong. The Bible has much to say about the darkness that Paul has in mind:

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

These passages make clear that the unfruitful works of darkness especially include the works of those who are involved in demonic activities because evil supernatural beings are the rulers of the darkness of this world.

You want to claim that even the distinctively occult kinds of music that any and all occultists play and produce are all still only pleasing to God, acceptable to Him, and fit for use in worship even though they are engaging in demonic activities.

You have to prove from the Bible that regardless of who plays any music, regardless of what activities those people are involved in, etc, all their music is still pleasing to God and none of it is an unfruitful work of darkness of people who are engaged in wicked demonic activities.

These three verses certainly tell us that our fight is against spiritual forces that set themselves up against God. I don't disagree.
Now, exegete these three verses and show me how Paul is referring to specific forms of music.
This is, after all, a thread that is debating music. What specific regulations against music are found in the three verses you shared? As the resident legalist, you need to show us the law so we don't break it.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

There's at least one passage that could show God's displeasure of certain music, in Exodus 32. The dancing and singing before the golden calf (vv17-18) surely fitted "the unfruitful works of darkness".
Also, I'd not label SMA as a legalist, more of one "majoring in the minors". IMO, true legalists are those who base their salvation on keeping God's law, rather than by His grace through faith in Christ's finished work. The "ruler" in Luke 18:18-25 thought that perhaps "All these have I kept from my youth up" might be enough.

 

[AustinC]

There's at least one passage that could show God's displeasure of certain music, in Exodus 32. The dancing and singing before the golden calf (vv17-18) surely fitted "the unfruitful works of darkness".
Also, I'd not label SMA as a legalist, more of one "majoring in the minors". IMO, true legalists are those who base their salvation on keeping God's law, rather than by His grace through faith in Christ's finished work. The "ruler" in Luke 18:18-25 thought that perhaps "All these have I kept from my youth up" might be enough.

God was displeased with the Hebrews creating an image of gold and calling it YHWH. The dancing and music were not the issue. The worship of a man-made god was the issue.
There is no regulation on forms of music anywhere in the Bible, that I am aware of. I await SMA providing this passage.
Regarding your definition of legalism, if that is the correct definition, you are then correct. I was not using the term in regard to salvation, but instead in regard to a set of rules and actions required of a Christian by another Christian or group of Christians that determines holiness or piety. Having grown up in the IFCA I was immersed in legalism whereby rules and regulations for demanded Christian living were required for Christian fellowship. Failure to comply met with censure and shunning. SMA therefore meets the standard of legalist in my definition.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

These three verses certainly tell us that our fight is against spiritual forces that set themselves up against God. I don't disagree.
Now, exegete these three verses and show me how Paul is referring to specific forms of music.
This is, after all, a thread that is debating music. What specific regulations against music are found in the three verses you shared? As the resident legalist, you need to show us the law so we don't break it.

You are mistaken in your understanding of God's wisdom. When God put the entire realm of the occult off-limits to human beings, He thereby put everything that is distinctively of the occult off-limits. Instead of God's having to list the 100s and 1000s of sinful activities of occultists in Scripture, He in His perfect wisdom has put it all off-limits.

Just as when God put certain Canaanite cities under the ban and forbad His people from having anything to do with anything of those cities, so God has put everything that is distinctively of the occult off-limits. You claim that does not apply to music that is distinctively of the occult. You have to prove that is true.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

There's at least one passage that could show God's displeasure of certain music, in Exodus 32. The dancing and singing before the golden calf (vv17-18) surely fitted "the unfruitful works of darkness".
Also, I'd not label SMA as a legalist, more of one "majoring in the minors". IMO, true legalists are those who base their salvation on keeping God's law, rather than by His grace through faith in Christ's finished work. The "ruler" in Luke 18:18-25 thought that perhaps "All these have I kept from my youth up" might be enough.

The inspired record of the Golden Calf Incident (GCI) plainly points to divine displeasure with the singing and the dancing that took place on that occasion.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

God was displeased with the Hebrews creating an image of gold and calling it YHWH. The dancing and music were not the issue. The worship of a man-made god was the issue.
There is no regulation on forms of music anywhere in the Bible, that I am aware of. I await SMA providing this passage.
Regarding your definition of legalism, if that is the correct definition, you are then correct. I was not using the term in regard to salvation, but instead in regard to a set of rules and actions required of a Christian by another Christian or group of Christians that determines holiness or piety. Having grown up in the IFCA I was immersed in legalism whereby rules and regulations for demanded Christian living were required for Christian fellowship. Failure to comply met with censure and shunning. SMA therefore meets the standard of legalist in my definition.

No, the Hebrews did not call the golden calf YHWH. That is a common wrong interpretation of that passage.

 

[AustinC]

No, the Hebrews did not call the golden calf YHWH. That is a common wrong interpretation of that passage.

At first, Exodus 32 sounds like an instance of the first kind of idolatry—worship of a false god. The Israelites certainly sound like they’re asking for a new god to lead them: “Make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him” (Ex. 32:1).

Whatever their motivations were, Aaron attempted to redefine the act into worship of Yahweh:

And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.” (Ex. 32:4–5)

Is this about worshiping false gods, or the true God falsely? It sounds an awful lot like both. The people want something new. Aaron invokes the divine name, the LORD (Yahweh), in order to consecrate the feast devoted to celebrating and sacrificing to this shiny statue.

What was the Lord’s verdict? Despite the best (though dubious) intentions of Aaron, the people abandoned faithfulness to God. Despite Aaron calling it holy, their new worship was nothing but an abomination. Despite it being labeled worship of Yahweh, God himself dubbed it worship of something else.

Reexamining Idolatry: The Golden Calf and False Worship

 

[OnlyaSinner]

God was displeased with the Hebrews creating an image of gold and calling it YHWH. The dancing and music were not the issue. The worship of a man-made god was the issue.
There is no regulation on forms of music anywhere in the Bible, that I am aware of. I await SMA providing this passage.
Regarding your definition of legalism, if that is the correct definition, you are then correct. I was not using the term in regard to salvation, but instead in regard to a set of rules and actions required of a Christian by another Christian or group of Christians that determines holiness or piety. Having grown up in the IFCA I was immersed in legalism whereby rules and regulations for demanded Christian living were required for Christian fellowship. Failure to comply met with censure and shunning. SMA therefore meets the standard of legalist in my definition.

I've heard preachers whom I respect speak of two types of legalism, the one I described (which I think to be the most dangerous) and the one you have described (which is bad enough). The two are verbally related, in that one prescribes a work or works in order to be saved and the other prescribes a work or (almost always) works in order to be considered holy/pious. One is clearly addressed in scripture. The other is based more on opinions (which doesn't make it invalid).
Joshua described the noise of the people below as "a noise of war in the camp" then Moses responded that it wasn't a battle but "the noise of them that sing do I hear." It's true that there is no explicit verse or passage that states this singing (or any other music) is bad/sinful. However, in Ex. 32 the singing was part of an idolatrous celebration. Music affects the emotions, and in this instance the music would seem to be augmenting idolatrous emotions.

 

[AustinC]

That same music induced David to dance before the Ark of the Covenant.
Was David's wife, Michel, right to be angry with him?

We make our point that music, in itself, is governed by the conscience so that worship can be glorifying in any musical genre. Yet, the songs of the sons of Satan are of no value to the sons of the King. We lift our praise to the King of Kings. We do not celebrate the enemy of our King.

 

[AustinC]

There are Christian songs that are sung to bar tunes. The most famous of these is "A Mighty Fortress is Our God." A newer song sung to the tune of Auld Lang Syne is "All Glory Be to Christ." Is it wrong to worship God with this song?

Words by Dustin Kensrue To the tune of Auld Lang Syne

Verse 1
Should nothing of our efforts stand, No legacy survive,
Unless the Lord does raise the house, In vain its builders strive.
To you who boast tomorrow’s gain, Tell me, what is your life?
A mist, it vanishes at dawn, All glory be to Christ.

Chorus
All glory be to Christ our King,
All glory be to Christ.
His rule and reign we’ll ever sing,
All glory be to Christ.

Verse 2
His will be done, His kingdom come, On earth as is above.
Who is Himself our daily bread, Praise Him the Lord of love.
Let living waters satisfy the thirsty without price.
Come eat of Him, our Living Bread, all glory be to Christ.

Chorus
All glory be to Christ our King,
All glory be to Christ.
His rule and reign we’ll ever sing,
All glory be to Christ.

Verse 3
When on the day, the great I Am, the faithful and the true,
The Lamb who was for sinner’s slain, Is making all things new.
Behold our God shall live with us, And be our steadfast Light,
And we shall e’er his people be, All glory be to Christ.

Chorus
All glory be to Christ our King,
All glory be to Christ.
His rule and reign we’ll ever sing,
All glory be to Christ.

All glory be to Christ our King,
All glory be to Christ.
His rule and reign we’ll ever sing,
All glory be to Christ.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

That same music induced David to dance before the Ark of the Covenant.
Was David's wife, Michel, right to be angry with him?

We make our point that music, in itself, is governed by the conscience so that worship can be glorifying in any musical genre. Yet, the songs of the sons of Satan are of no value to the sons of the King. We lift our praise to the King of Kings. We do not celebrate the enemy of our King.

Claiming that the music in the account of David was the same as the music in Exodus 32 is plainly wrong. There is explicit biblical information for holding that it was not at all the same.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Joshua described the noise of the people below as "a noise of war in the camp" then Moses responded that it wasn't a battle but "the noise of them that sing do I hear." It's true that there is no explicit verse or passage that states this singing (or any other music) is bad/sinful. However, in Ex. 32 the singing was part of an idolatrous celebration. Music affects the emotions, and in this instance the music would seem to be augmenting idolatrous emotions.

You are not accounting for key information concerning what took place in the GCI. The text says that the people ate and drank in a worship context what had been offered to the idol and then rose up to play (Exod. 32:6). When they ate and drank in idolatrous worship (1 Cor. 10:7) those things that had been offered to an idol , those people came into fellowship with demons (1 Cor. 10:19-20).

The war-like music that Joshua heard emanating from the camp was the music of people singing and dancing who were in fellowship with demons. The reason that music sounded the way that it did when it was heard from a distance is because it was ungodly music played and sung by people in fellowship with demons.

 

[AustinC]

Claiming that the music in the account of David was the same as the music in Exodus 32 is pure assertion for which you have no proof. There is no reason to hold that it was the same, and there is explicit biblical information for holding that it was not at all the same.

You are correct. The tune may or may not have been different. The types of instruments may have been different. We do not know. What we know is that God did not condemn the music, but He did condemn the worship of the Hebrews. With David he condemned neither.
There is no reason to claim one music evil while another music good. That would be purely opinion without biblical support. Do you see the normative principle in effect?

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

What we know is that God did not condemn the music, but He did condemn the worship of the Hebrews. With David he condemned neither.

The two accounts have key differences. For the former, the Holy Spirit inspired for our profit explicit revelation that concerned the sound of the composite sound emanating from the camp that was heard by Joshua and Moses at a distance from the camp:

Exod. 32:17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.

18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

Why did the Spirit want us to know this information? Why is it in Scripture? How are we supposed to profit from it?