I have deleted this post at this time so that I can fix parts of the article to clarify the position that I have held all along. I have not changed my position on the relevance of 2 Kings 4:38-41 in relation to 1 Tim. 4:3-5 and 6:17 and how they pertain to the issue of justifying CCM, but I do believe that the article will be better by my clarifying what I wrote.
While I continue to work on the full revised version of my article, I would like to share the following brief statements that present the basic gist of how 2 Kings 4:38-41 argues against the validity of justifying CCM through an argument based on creation.
1. Second Kings 4:38-41 shows that something that God originally created as good for food (the wild vine that produced gourds) was no longer good for that God-given purpose. Based on that data, it is illegitimate to claim based on the nature of the original good creation of God that all substances that God originally gave to man for food (plants and animals) are necessarily all still inherently good for the purposes for which God originally created them.
2. God did not create any musical styles. Even if He had created all musical styles originally as inherently good, a claim that all musical styles are all still inherently good for the purposes for which God originally gave music would similarly not be automatically true just because God would have originally created them.
Copyright © 2011-2023 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.