On Bible Interpretation, Evidence, and Music
Image
2 Timothy 3:16 reveals that all of Scripture is God-inspired and instructive. Taken with Romans 15:4, similar verses, and examples of NT use of OT passages, some have concluded that even incidental narrative details are potential sources of doctrine.
Since OT narrative details reference everything from clothing to cooking, tools, weapons, vehicles (carts, chariots), and so much more, there are, of course, references to music. There are even references to specific instruments, moods, and uses of music.
I want to offer a few thoughts here for two audiences. The first is those who claim the hermeneutic (interpretive approach) that takes every narrative detail as a potential source of doctrine. The second audience is those who have participated in conversations, debates, or quarrels on the topic of “what the Bible teaches about music” and sensed that there was some kind of disconnect regarding how to use Scripture to address features of present-day culture.
Maybe something here can help a few understand each other a little bit better on these topics and more accurately identify points of agreement and disagreement.
Narrative and Evidence
I’ve written about proper use of narrative before, with a focus on why we should avoid “spiritualizing” elements of narrative—whether OT or NT. Many of the same problems afflict efforts to extract doctrine from narrative details.
Here, we’ll focus on the role of evidence in Bible interpretation, especially narrative.
It should be a given that since we’re talking about God’s Word, and teaching we are going to claim is “biblical,” any interpretation we take of any passage of Scripture—narrative or not—needs to be justified by evidence and reasoning. Saying “God meant this when He said that” is a weighty claim! It needs to be justified.
In other words, whenever we claim, “This information in this text has this meaning for us,” we should be expected to prove it. The “proof” may be informal, as it usually is in preaching. Still, we should expect listeners to want reasons. Our beliefs and assertions should be warranted, and we should help others see why they are warranted.
Narrative is no exception to this duty—any more than poetry, prophecy, or epistles.
Classifying Evidence
Some years ago, I wrote about casting lots as a thought experiment on handling biblical evidence. A lot of readers wanted to debate the validity of casting lots—but my intent was to stir curiosity: Why don’t churches or individual believers generally make decisions that way today?
There’s a reason we don’t. It has to do with evidence.
I’m going to talk about three qualities of evidence, two types of evidence, then five sub-types.
First, three qualities:
- Consistent with
- Supportive
- Conclusive
Say a building burned down, and we discover that Wolfgang was at the location when the fire started. His presence there is consistent with the claim that he started the fire, but it doesn’t support that conclusion at all. This is more obvious if lots of other people were there, too.
But suppose we also learn that Wolfgang had publicly said he wished that building would burn. He also bought lots of flammable liquids earlier that day. That still doesn’t prove he did it, but it is supportive. Though inconclusive, it is evidential for the claim that Wolfgang started the fire.
Now suppose Wolfgang was the only person there at the right time to have started the fire. Suppose the building was recently inspected and found to have no faulty wiring. There were no electrical storms that day, either.
We are now probably “beyond reasonable doubt” about Wolfgang’s guilt. The evidence is conclusive in the sense that it warrants a high-confidence conclusion.
On to the two types:
- Internal evidence
- External evidence
In reference to the Bible, internal evidence is anything within the 66 books of the Bible. External evidence is everything from human experience, human nature, and the whole created world outside the Bible.
Simple enough. On to the five sub-types. These are types of internal evidence. We could choose almost any topic, then classify every (or nearly every) biblical reference to it as one of these types. I’ll use music for this example:
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in all contexts.
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in a particular setting.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality, and evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality but no evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, but no contextual indications of quality or exemplary intent.
What do I mean by “exemplary intent”? Sometimes we read that person A did B, and the context encourages us to believe we’re seeing an example of good or bad conduct. For example, we read that Daniel prayed “as he had done previously” (Dan 6:10). The context encourages us to see Daniel’s choices as both good (“contextual indications of quality”) and something to imitate in an appropriate way (“exemplary intent”).
Evidence and Certainty
Why bother to classify evidence? Because classifying the information (evidence/potential evidence) guides us in evaluating how well it works as justification for a claim. In turn, that shapes how certain we can be that our understanding is correct and how certain we can encourage others to be.
Looking at the five types of internal evidence above, the evidential weight and certainty decrease as we get further down the list. By the time we get to type 5, we may not have evidence at all—in reference to our topic or claim. Depending on the size of the claim, there might be information that is consistent with a claim, but not really anything supportive, much less conclusive.
As we move up the list of types, relevance to the topic becomes far more direct, and interpretive possibilities are greatly reduced. Certainty increases because there are fewer options.
There is no Bible verse that tells us this. It’s a function of what is there in the text vs. what is not there. We know there is a difference between an apostle saying, “Do this for this reason” and an individual in an OT history doing something, with no explanation of why it’s in the text. The relationship of these realities to appropriate levels of certainty follows out of necessity.
How Narrative Is Special
Speaking of differences between one genre of writing and another in Scripture, let’s pause to briefly note a few things about narrative.
- Humans pretty much universally recognize narrative. They may not be able to explain what sets it apart from other kinds of writing, but they know it when they read or hear it.
- The characteristics of narrative that enable us to recognize it are not revealed in Scripture. There is no verse that says “this is the definition of narrative.” We just know.
- Those characteristics include the fact that many details in narratives are only there to support the story. They are not intended to convey anything to us outside of that context.
- There is no Bible verse that tells us narrative works this way. We just know. It’s built into the definition.
What does this mean when it comes to evidence and justifying our claim that a passage reveals a truth or helps build a doctrine?
It means that narrative detail has a different burden-of-proof level by default. Because the story-supportive role of narrative detail is inherent in the nature of narrative, our starting assumption with these details is normally that they are there to give us information about the events and characters, not to provide other kinds of information.
Can a narrative detail have a secondary purpose of revealing to us the nature of, say, hats and other clothing, carts and other vehicles, stew and other dishes, axes and other tools, lyres and other musical instruments? Probably sometimes. As with any other interpretive claim, the burden of proof lies on the interpreter to justify it. In the case of narrative, though, the interpreter has a lower-certainty starting point, and a longer journey to arrive at a warranted belief.
The Profitability of All Scripture
2 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 15:4 do indeed assure us that all of Scripture is important. “Verbal, plenary inspiration” describes our conviction that every original word of the Bible is fully and equally from God. So we don’t look at any words and dismiss them as unimportant. What we do is ask how do these words work together in their context to provide us with “teaching… reproof.. correction… and training in righteousness.”
Narrative details are important. They’re so important that we’re obligated to stay out of the way and let them do their job.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
Aaron's reference may have some other arguments, but in my estimation, Elymas was a "fake occultist" akin to a 1st century Gene Simmons, trying to look like he was dabbling with demons for fun and profit.
Here's why. First, Luke calls him a "false prophet", following the Old Testament pattern of calling false prophets "liars". Paul repeats that by noting that he was full of "all kinds of deceit and trickery", and closes the deal by not casting out any real demon in Elymas, but by blinding him. There is none of the behavior we see from demons elsewhere like screaming, noticing Who is casting them out, etc..
There are real examples of occultism and demon possession in the Bible--Jesus casts out many demons, and of course you've got the slave girl in Acts 16:16-18--but the context of Acts 13 does not indicate this.
And as I noted before, if we are going to put together a coherent theology of demon possession, sorcery, and the like (let's use the Biblical categories instead of "occult", please), we need to go through the breadth of Scripture. We will start to see a pattern if we do.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Rajesh,
Does it give you pause that we have reached the foundational hermeneutical issues and no one is agreeing with you? Please don’t take this as disrespectful, but does it concern you at all that you can’t convince anyone else? Could you perhaps be wrong?
Does it give you pause that we have reached the foundational hermeneutical issues and no one is agreeing with you? Please don’t take this as disrespectful, but does it concern you at all that you can’t convince anyone else? Could you perhaps be wrong?
No, it does not concern me at all. I take seriously exactly what the Spirit has said. Many dismiss or explain away the details of what He has said by claiming automatically without any biblical warrant that those details have no significance other than to make a "story" interesting. I reject that view categorically.
For the record, there are people who agree with me in the things that I say are true. They just are either not on SI or if they are, they choose not to comment.
In addition, I have many strong recommendations from pastors of churches where I have preached and taught, including for many messages on the Bible and music. I also have taught a college-level class on acceptable music for corporate worship and received the full support of the pastor of the church where I taught that class as he interpreted my teaching to his Hispanic students.
Here's why. First, Luke calls him a "false prophet", following the Old Testament pattern of calling false prophets "liars". Paul repeats that by noting that he was full of "all kinds of deceit and trickery", and closes the deal by not casting out any real demon in Elymas, but by blinding him. There is none of the behavior we see from demons elsewhere like screaming, noticing Who is casting them out, etc.
Actually, no, these things do not show that he was a "fake" occultist. The Spirit chose to reveal that Elymas was a false prophet; the Spirit could easily have done the same thing concerning his being an occultist by saying that he was a false sorcerer. Because the Spirit did not do so, the burden of proof is on you.
As for his being full of deceit, etc. Satan is the consummate deceiver. By your faulty reasoning, we would have to hold that he is not an authentic demon.
Your claim that Paul did not cast out any real demon, so Elymas was not a real occultist has no biblical support. The Bible never teaches that witches, wizards, sorcerers, etc. are possessed. Being demon-possessed is not a biblical characteristic of being an authentic occultist.
Using the term "occultist" to speak of sorcerers, witches, wizards, and other biblically mentioned practitioners of such demonic activities is fully warranted because the Bible makes clear that God has not given us exhaustive information about all such practitioners (cf. "witchcraft . . . and such like" [Gal. 5:20-21]). Furthermore, according to your faulty reasoning in this regard, we cannot use terms such as gambling, pornography, and your favorite term, "racism," because they are not biblical terms, right?
I also have taught a college-level class on acceptable music for corporate worship
Great! So, theoretically, it should be possible for you to give us a few basic conclusions that you draw from the passage in question or any of the other passages that have been mentioned in this thread.
What specific music is conclusively acceptable or unacceptable for public worship?
Great! So, theoretically, it should be possible for you to give us a few basic conclusions that you draw from the passage in question or any of the other passages that have been mentioned in this thread.
What specific music is conclusively acceptable or unacceptable for public worship?
I already answered this question earlier in the thread.
I guess we have different ideas of what the word "specific" means.
So the fact that Acts 13 does not have any of the characteristics of the known interaction with demons as seen in the Gospels and Acts does not seem to mean anything to you, nor do clear statements from Luke and Paul indicating that Elymas was a fraud.
As I've noted before, this is Humpty Dumpty exegesis, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more, nor less." Really, Rajesh, there ought to be a point where some of these things penetrate, but I'm not seeing it.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert Perry claims that because Elymas was a false prophet who was "full of all subtilty and all mischief," he was a false sorcerer who just pretended to be a sorcerer but in reality had no authentic interaction or contact with demons.
Four books of the NT refute this faulty notion that a false prophet who uses deception cannot be involved in authentically demonic activities, etc.
1. Matthew and Mark both record that Jesus taught that false prophets who deceive multitudes will be workers of great demonic miracles:
Matt. 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Matt. 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mk. 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
The words used for "signs" and "wonders" in both these Gospels are words that are used to speak of authentic miracles that can only be done through either the power of God and His angels or through the power of Satan and his demons. Such miraculous works never are and cannot merely be sleight-of-hand trickery by slick, human charlatans, etc. Obviously, Jesus did not teach that these false prophets will do these miracles through the power of God and His angels.
2. 1 Jn. 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
John warns believers that many false prophets are in the world whose false prophetic speech/activities are from spirits that are not of God.
3. Rev. 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
Rev. 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev. 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
John revealed that the consummate false prophet who will deceive vast multitudes all over the world with demonic miracles in the end times will be a person out of whom an unclean spirit will come.
Furthermore, he will exercise demonic power when he engages in all his demonically empowered activities as the consummate false prophet of the end times:
Revelation 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast [the Antichrist]: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?)
Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast [the false prophet] coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
The teaching of these NT passages (as well as some OT passages) categorically refutes the notion that Elymas had to have been a "false" sorcerer because he was a false prophet who greatly used deception, lies, etc. In actuality, the NT teaching about false prophets speaks of such people as being authentically in contact with demons and doing their deceptive miracles/activities through demonic power.
Concerning the theological importance of Acts 13:6-12, consider the following that I have written elsewhere:
We must solemnly consider that Scripture reveals the horrific extent to which demons can corrupt humans in a passage that makes several key revelations about an ancient sorcerer:
Acts 13:6 And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: 7 Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. 9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, 10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
This profound revelation is noteworthy for many reasons because of what it reveals about the fearful malignity of a professional occultist.
First, it says that he was a professional occultist (who was also a false prophet) who sought to turn away from the faith an unbeliever who wanted to hear God’s truth. Such people thus are profoundly dangerous to unbelievers.
Second, it infallibly reveals key truths about the sorcerer by infallibly recording what the leader of the apostolic company *being filled with the Spirit* [text between the asterisks is in italics in the original] said to the sorcerer. This shows that the statements that Paul made about the sorcerer were exactly what the Spirit directed him to say about the sorcerer. None of Paul’s statements about him were in any way just his own thinking, perspectives, or even possible biases against a particular kind of person because of that person’s ethnicity or any other important aspects of his person.
Third, it shows how consummately this human being was a corrupted human being.
Elymas was “full of all subtilty and all mischief.” He was a profoundly crafty and fraudulent person who used deceit to accomplish his objectives.
He was an “enemy of all righteousness.” He actively opposed everything that was an aspect of righteousness before God. He thus openly fought against the doing of anything that was righteous in the sight of God.
He also would “not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord.” This man continually did whatever he could to corrupt the doing of something in a way that was right before God.
Because Scripture reveals that there are occultists in the world who are such incredibly corrupt people, believers must not dabble with things of the occult in any manner and must reject all products and practices that are distinctively of occultists, including their musical products and practices.
including their musical products and practices.
Why single out this as a primary emphasis? Is there anything in Acts 13 to suggest that Elymas was using music in his opposition to Paul and the gospel?
Again, literally no one here believes we should use occult elements in Christian worship, so I don't understand why you are so hyper-focused on proving something that isn't directly related to this particular passage.
Rajesh, looking through your comment, I see precisely zero citations that would apply to what I wrote. To start, you write as if you are only responding to one bit of evidence that I provided, when in reality what I'm noting is that both Luke and Paul describe him in effect as a fake, a reality buttressed by the reality that Paul blinds him instead of casting out a demon. There is also no response from the demon at the presence of an apostle of Christ, which there ought to be if indeed a demon is being cast out.
This really addresses the core of what this thread was supposed to be about; the degree to which the use of narrative is troublesome. Your response actually changes the genre being used from narrative to prophecy, and does not include critical aspects like "what happens when a sorcerer possessed by demons encounters the Savior or an apostle?", and more importantly ignores the passages where precisely this happens. It violates all kinds of rules of inductive logic, really.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Why single out this as a primary emphasis? Is there anything in Acts 13 to suggest that Elymas was using music in his opposition to Paul and the gospel?
Again, literally no one here believes we should use occult elements in Christian worship, so I don't understand why you are so hyper-focused on proving something that isn't directly related to this particular passage.
Look again at the title of the thread. My purpose in pointing attention to the details of Acts 13:6-12 is to bring out its implications for why believers must categorically reject bringing into Christian worship music of the occult.
Your claim in the second paragraph is false. There are people on SI who deny that instrumental music that is from occultists must be rejected.
Rajesh, looking through your comment, I see precisely zero citations that would apply to what I wrote. To start, you write as if you are only responding to one bit of evidence that I provided, when in reality what I'm noting is that both Luke and Paul describe him in effect as a fake, a reality buttressed by the reality that Paul blinds him instead of casting out a demon. There is also no response from the demon at the presence of an apostle of Christ, which there ought to be if indeed a demon is being cast out.
This really addresses the core of what this thread was supposed to be about; the degree to which the use of narrative is troublesome. Your response actually changes the genre being used from narrative to prophecy, and does not include critical aspects like "what happens when a sorcerer possessed by demons encounters the Savior or an apostle?", and more importantly ignores the passages where precisely this happens. It violates all kinds of rules of inductive logic, really.
Your entire approach to this passage is deeply flawed because you wrongly claim that anyone who is involved in demonic activities will be a demon-possessed person. The Bible never teaches that is true.
I have not changed any "genre." "False prophet" in the Greek text of Acts 13 is not an adjective modifying a noun. It is a noun. What I examined is all the occurrences of that noun in the NT.
You want to claim that Elymas was a total fake who had no interaction with demons. The other occurrences of that Greek word do not support your faulty interpretation.
There are people on SI who deny that instrumental music that is from occultists must be rejected.
No, there are no members of SI who are advocating for using occult music in Christian worship. While it is not explicitly stated in the community guidelines, I doubt anyone could be an SI participant and support occult music.
I have read the title of the thread, and still don't why you think Acts 13 is talking about music.
No, there are no members of SI who are advocating for using occult music in Christian worship. While it is not explicitly stated in the community guidelines, I doubt anyone could be an SI participant and support occult music.
I have read the title of the thread, and still don't why you think Acts 13 is talking about music.
I never said that Acts 13 is talking about music.
What I am saying is that Acts 13 provides truth that shows that Christians must reject music of the occult because it is music of people who are exceedingly depraved people. Acts 13 teaches us that there are professional occultists who are enemies of all righteousness and continually pervert the right ways of God (Acts 13:10). People who are such corrupt people can and have been "inventors of evil things" (Rom. 1:30), including such wicked things as human skull drums and the vile occult music that is played on such vile musical instruments.
Rock music and all music derived from it is occult music. There are SI members who say that the use of rock music and its derivatives, etc. in Christian worship is acceptable to God if it has Christian words that it is accompanying.
Bert Perry asserts that authentic demonic activity in a human being requires that the person be possessed. Luke 13 shows that view is false.
Luke 13:11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. 12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 13 And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. 14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. 15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? 16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? 17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.
Jesus infallibly and inerrantly declared that this woman had been bound by Satan for 18 years. The passage provides no evidence that she was demon-possessed. It also does not speak of a demon or demons crying out when this encounter with the Savior that led to the full healing of the woman took place.
The notion that authentic demonic activity in a human being requires that the person be possessed is false.
You're responding to my comments on a passage about a false prophet and sorcerer by referencing a passage where Jesus heals a woman's physical infirmity, Rajesh?
Does "comparing apples and oranges" mean anything to you? I would at least hope that any freshman level Bible college professor would give you a big red F for that one.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
You're responding to my comments on a passage about a false prophet and sorcerer by referencing a passage where Jesus heals a woman's physical infirmity, Rajesh?
Does "comparing apples and oranges" mean anything to you? I would at least hope that any freshman level Bible college professor would give you a big red F for that one.
You are the one who needs an F for mishandling the Bible. The passage explicitly says that Satan bound her for 18 years. According to your faulty theology, that would mean that the woman was demon-possessed for 18 years. The passage, however, gives no indication that she was demon-possessed.
Scripture provides plain revelation that refutes the notion that genuine demonic activity in false prophets requires demonic possession:
2 Chronicles 18:20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? 21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. 22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee. 23 Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah upon the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee?
Four hundred false prophets gave false prophecy to Ahab (2 Chron. 18:5; 18:10-11) that led to his doom (2 Chron. 18:28-34). A true prophet made known that what had taken place in the giving of those false prophecies by all of those false prophets was the working of "a lying spirit in the mouth of all his [Ahab's] prophets" (2 Chron. 18:21-22).
The passage does not provide any evidence that any of those false prophets manifested in any way that they were demon-possessed when they gave their false prophecies that were the working of a demon in all of their mouths. In reality, had any of these false prophets displayed such evidences of demon-possession, it would likely have tipped Ahab off that their prophecies were not to be heeded.
In particular, Zedekiah was a leader among these prophets in the giving of false prophecy (2 Chron. 18:10-11). Tellingly, he wrongly believed that he actually had the Spirit of the Lord on him prior to Micaiah's giving true prophecy to Ahab (2 Chron. 18:23).
Zedekiah thus seemingly attests to how a leading false prophet was himself deceived and appears to have thought that he was a true prophet of the Lord. Nonetheless, we know with certainty that the false prophecy that he gave on this occasion was the work of a demon in his mouth.
Tellingly, neither Zedekiah nor any of the other 399 false prophets who prophesied falsely at the working of a demon on this occasion gave any evidence of their being demon-possessed. This passage plainly shows that the notion that false prophets who are genuinely involved in demonic activities certainly will be demon-possessed people is categorically false.
Bert Perry asserts that Elymas was likely a fake. I have provided evidence that fully counters that view.
For the sake of discussion, however, suppose that Elymas were a fake. If that were the case, the passage would take on additional significance because regardless of whether he was a "fake" sorcerer or an authentic sorcerer, everything else the passage says about him would still be true.
If Elymas were a fake, the passage would show to us and warn us just how dangerous at least some people who pretend to be occultists can be. They would be people who seek to turn people away from the faith. They would be people who are consummately deceitful, enemies of all righteousness, and continual perverters of the right ways of the Lord.
Such "fake" occultists would be exceedingly dangerous people to unbelievers and would be people with whom Christians must not have anything to do.
Furthermore, if Acts 13:6-12 were inspired teaching about "fake" occultists, by legitimate reasoning from the lesser to the greater, it would be teaching that would warn us about how much more dangerous at least some authentic occultists are!
In conclusion, unlike any other passage in the Bible, Acts 13:6-12 teaches us vital truths about just how evil and corrupted human beings can be who are occultists. Paying attention very carefully to all the details of this narrative passage matters greatly and is highly profitable for sound doctrine and practice!
Wow. 221 comments to find out that occult practitioners, whether genuine or pretenders, are opposed to the gospel and therefore are dangerous and ought to be avoided. Not quite what I'd consider a profound insight unique to Acts 13.
And, 222 comments in and we still haven't been shown how contemporary Christian music is derived from occultic skull drums.
I nominate this thread as the worst SI thread of 2024.
Wow. 221 comments to find out that occult practitioners, whether genuine or pretenders, are opposed to the gospel and therefore are dangerous and ought to be avoided. Not quite what I'd consider a profound insight unique to Acts 13.
Your lack of appreciation of the profound insight from the passage is because you have not been willing to actually acknowledge what the passage specifically reveals. If you know of another passage that teaches the same specific truths, feel free to tell what that passage is and how it teaches the same truths as Acts 13:6-12.
And, 222 comments in and we still haven't been shown how contemporary Christian music is derived from occultic skull drums.
I nominate this thread as the worst SI thread of 2024.
What you say makes it seem as if the entire thread was for some purpose concerning CCM, etc. That simply is not true. This thread is Aaron's thread and that was not the purpose of the thread.
The actual main point of the thread was about how we should approach details in narrative passages. I am satisfied that I have presented supporting evidence for my views on that main point.
I believe that there are instrumental musical "genres" or "styles" of the occult that are categorically, forever off-limits to God's people.
My position is based on the following truths:
- Supernatural evil exists--it is real.
- God forbids humans from having anything to do with supernatural evil.
- Evil humans have engaged in occult musical activities intended to elicit interaction with supernatural evil. Through such activities, they have had fully authentic interactions with supernatural evil.
- All such occult musical activities and all their distinctively occult musical practices and products ("genres," "styles," etc.) are categorically, forever off-limits to God's people.
All four points are fine, although #3 rates as a "probably" with me, as I know of no clear examples of this. I'll take it as a given however, because someone somewhere has probably done this.
Point #5 should be: X musical style is explicitly and clearly the product of occult musical practices and therefore off limits.
That is where the burden of proof lies. Although I don't like most modern genres, I don't know how you prove they are the fruit of occultism.
In the end, I think this is a fruitless exercise, because you can't conclusively prove point 5.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I see problems with all but #1.
#2 What does “anything to do” mean? Where is that written? Does that really fit the ‘meat offered to idols’ (equated with demons to some extent in the context) passages?
Jesus ate with publicans and sinners. Are we told “only non-occultic” publicans and sinners? What about 1 Cor. 5:9-12?
#3 What is an “evil human”? Are there any not evil humans? Do we mean “humans who are sinners”? That would be everyone including all of us. Are you suggesting a special class of humans? What defines the distinction between them and everyone else?
Both #2 and #3 What is “supernatural evil”? Is there natural evil? How are they different? Are we called to have a more relaxed attitude toward ‘natural’ evil but a more strict attitude toward ‘supernatural’ evil? Why?
#4 What is a “distinctively occult musical practice”? Would it be specific chords? Melodies? Rhythms? Instruments? How are they “distinctive”?
To sum up, there are a lot of both theological and practical problems with approaching the topic that way.
It might be worth doing to study the passages that specifically warn about practices/persons we’re calling “occult” and dig into what is actually commanded (in context) and why, to the extent we can get at that.
In application, we’ve always got to figure out how we are like and unlike the original audience and how our situation is like and unlike theirs. The truths have to be understood rightly then rightly adapted to a different setting.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think that case can be made.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
#3 What is an “evil human”? Are there any not evil humans? Do we mean “humans who are sinners”? That would be everyone including all of us. Are you suggesting a special class of humans? What defines the distinction between them and everyone else?
This objection is invalid. My use of "evil human" is fully in line with explicit biblical revelation, both in the Hebrew OT and in the Greek NT.
Proverbs 24:1 Be not thou envious against evil men, neither desire to be with them.
Prov. 24:1 WTT אַל־תְּ֭קַנֵּא בְּאַנְשֵׁ֣י רָעָ֑ה וְאַל־(תִּתְאָו) [תִּ֜תְאָ֗יו] לִהְי֥וֹת אִתָּֽם׃
Proverbs 28:5 Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things.
WTT Proverbs 28:5 אַנְשֵׁי־רָ֭ע לֹא־יָבִ֣ינוּ מִשְׁפָּ֑ט וּמְבַקְשֵׁ֥י יְ֜הוָ֗ה יָבִ֥ינוּ כֹֽל׃
Both Proverbs 24:1 and 28:5 have explicit Hebrew words for "men" and for "evil," and "evil" is modifying "men" in both verses.
2 Tim. 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
πονηροὶ δὲ ἄνθρωποι καὶ γόητες προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι. (2 Tim. 3:13 BGT)
The Greek NT uses explicit words for "men" and "evil" in this verse, and "evil" modifies "men" in the verse.
If you have a problem with such terminology, you have a problem with the wisdom of the Spirit.
This objection is invalid.
It was not an objection. It was a question. A bunch of them. None of which you answered.
#3 What is an “evil human”? Are there any not evil humans? Do we mean “humans who are sinners”? That would be everyone including all of us. Are you suggesting a special class of humans? What defines the distinction between them and everyone else?
The answers matter because you’re trying to work categorically with the topic of music and the occult. So your case relies on creating special categories such as “evil humans.” Then the reasoning is categorical: Evil humans should be avoided, this is an evil human, therefore he must be avoided.
So, for the reasoning to work we have to know what the essential qualities of the category are. What makes these evil men distinct? None of the verses you mentioned referenced the occult, interestingly.
They seem to be pretty ordinary liars, immoral, sensual and the like. … very ‘natural’ evil, it would seem.
I really don’t think it’s going to be possible to build the case you want to build categorically. There is too much generalizing, and generalizations—of the sort we build ourselves—are often easy to challenge if not fully defeat. The conclusion ends up being a question mark because it relies on two premises being 100% accurate (and 100% certain). If the premises are full of freighted terms, or just complexity, the argument is even more dubious.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It is, once again, telling that although the Bible has innumerable chances to inform believers that their ancestral, pagan derived musical forms are out of line, it does not do so once. Not for that from Molech, or Asherah, or Ba'al, or Ishtar, or any of the Greek pantheon.
God's people are simply told to praise Him in song, and of course when Paul does this, he is addressing Greeks in their native language--or for many slaves, in their second language. It is doubtful that the audience would have known and understood Hebrew genre well, and it's also doubtful that the Hebrew genre would have worked for the various languages used by the Gentile believers because Hebrew has a different natural meter than do Greek and Latin.
In short, Paul all but endorses the musical forms of the Gentiles, because it would be necessary for Gentile believers with various languages to praise Him in song. Also worth noting is that the Jewish genre we have today--klezmer, etc..--bear little resemblance to the hymnody that is found in conservative churches. So if we want hymns, we've got to give people freedom for their own genre, because our favored genre is very different from what we see from traditional Jews, and (ahem) derives quite a bit from the pre-Christian pagan groups of Europe.
Also worth noting is that Scripture does not condemn other cultural practices of the Gentiles with the exception of idolatry. The foods are clean, the architecture is clean, the trees planted by them are clean, and even the homes built by the pagans (Joshua 24:13) are clean.
It is what we would expect from 1 Corinthians 10:25, where Gentile believers are told to eat anything sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience unless the connection to pagan sacrifice is made explicit. This is telling because the historians tell us that for meat and wine, everybody pretty much knew it was almost certainly from a sacrifice.
God created us for freedom. Let's not forget the lessons we ought to have learned from Galatians, 1 Corinthians 10, and so on.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The answers matter because you’re trying to work categorically with the topic of music and the occult. So your case relies on creating special categories such as “evil humans.” Then the reasoning is categorical: Evil humans should be avoided, this is an evil human, therefore he must be avoided.
No, I am not relying on creating any "special categories" . . . I have already proven explicitly from Scripture that "evil" is used as an adjective to modify general words for human beings.
In my case, I specified who those evil humans were/are that I am talking about by directly stating that they engage in occult activities. Scripture indisputably teaches that participation in the occult is evil.
In fact, earlier in the thread, I proved from Acts 13 that the Bible speaks explicitly of a named professional occultist as being singularly evil in a manner that the Bible never speaks explicitly of any other human being's being evil who has yet lived on the earth.
I see problems with all but #1. . . .
Both #2 and #3 What is “supernatural evil”? Is there natural evil? How are they different? Are we called to have a more relaxed attitude toward ‘natural’ evil but a more strict attitude toward ‘supernatural’ evil? Why?
These statements of yours appear to be at odds with each other.
In any case, of course, there is supernatural evil. Satan and his demons are supernatural beings who are evil. Any evil that they engage in or incite other living beings to engage in is supernatural evil because it involves the activity of supernatural evil beings--either directly or indirectly--in the committing of that evil.
Asking questions that pit "supernatural evil" vs. a supposedly so-called "natural evil" is hardly legitimate questioning when you affirmed earlier that you did not see any problem with #1.
It might be worth doing to study the passages that specifically warn about practices/persons we’re calling “occult” and dig into what is actually commanded (in context) and why, to the extent we can get at that.
I've been doing this for several years now. The Bible has far more truth in this respect (at least 80 verses) than many people have understood or appreciated.
#4 What is a “distinctively occult musical practice”? Would it be specific chords? Melodies? Rhythms? Instruments? How are they “distinctive”?
Using human skull drums to play music that is intended to summon demons and have interaction with them is a plain example of a distinctively occult musical practice. For those who are willing to do the work in researching the subject, there is more than sufficient factual information available about such practices to have full confidence that there are many occultists in the world who engage in occult practices that are both intended to bring about interaction with supernatural evil and in fact do bring about interaction with supernatural evil.
I am doubting if we can communicate. But some other readers might follow this…
I did not deny or even question that there are evil people, that there is supernatural evil, etc. I asked what are they? How are they different?
What I’m trying to get at is how you are defining your categories. You are trying use categorical reasoning, but your categories lack clarity.
They have to be clear before they can be proved to be applicable. The trouble with categorical reasoning is that you have to have two rock solid premises to establish your conclusion.
(What follows is a bit of a dive, but there’s a point. It’s worth working through.)
Here’s a non-controversial example of categorical reasoning: (aka syllogism)
- Black dogs are mean (‘major premise’)
- People shouldn’t buy mean dogs (‘minor premise’)
- Therefore, people should not buy black dogs (conclusion)
This seems like really simple logic, but when you look closely at it and start asking questions (which is what I did a few posts ago), you realize this reasoning is actually a heavy lift.
First, the major premise creates two categories: black dogs and meanness.
For simplicity, lets assume “mean” is clear to all.
Surely “black dogs” is also a clear category? Well, you’d think so, but not really. Here comes the questions…
- How much black fur does the dog have to have to be a ‘black dog’?
- What if the dog is black with gray or white spots?
- What if the dog is solid colored but really really dark gray? How dark is ‘black’?
- What if the dog started out with black fur, but grew in some white as it got older?
So the premise gets weaker with each question. It becomes more uncertain. There is more to clarify and prove. In categorical reasoning, you have either prove both of your premises or they have to already be givens to your audience.
Otherwise, the conclusion fails.
The major premise gets even weaker when we consider what is actually being said. The statement “black dogs are mean” is really “all black dogs are mean.” It’s a category.
And when we restate it precisely we immediately see how vulnerable it is. You only need one nice black dog and the premise dies. You can also easily ask: Has every black dog been tested for meanness?
So the whole argument is sort of balanced on the tip of a needle—the needly being that major premise. The slightest breeze of a question topples the whole thing.
And we haven’t even considered the minor premise: People shouldn’t buy mean dogs. This also raises questions. (Since meanness is also in the major premise, most of these apply there also.)
- What does a dog have to do be ‘mean’?
- How often does the dog have to act that way to be ‘mean’?
- What if the dog is only that way toward strangers and threats? Is that bad? Is that actually ‘mean’ or more like loyal?
- What if we borrow the dog instead of buying it? Is it OK for it to be mean then?
I could go on, but the point is that the minor premise has pretty much parallel weaknesses with the major premise. The precise meaning of the premise is also a universal: “all people should not buy mean dogs.” One example where it makes sense to buy a mean dog destroys the premise and topples the whole argument.
Here’s the point: We are often far more persuasive if we make a smaller claim, and often the best way to do that is to make a probabilistic claim and use inductive or abductive reasoning.
I’m going to gloss over the inductive or abductive bit. It’s usually possible to express these other forms of reasoning in deductive form, so I’ll just do that to illustrate what I mean by a smaller, probabilistic claim.
What if we change the black dogs argument to this:
- A lot of black dogs are mean
- People shouldn’t usually buy mean dogs
- It’s probably a good idea to not buy a black dog
This is still not persuasive, but I think you can see how it’s better. The premises are harder to defeat and the categories are expressly not universal. Instead of “all” we are saying “some.” Best of all, this structure invites people to explore the argument rather than immediately seeing it’s weak and feeling the urge to kick the legs out from under it.
So, my advice is—given the nature of categorical argument and also the nature of the available evidence on music and the occult—avoid categorical reasoning on the topic and go for smaller, probabilistic claims and non-universal premises.
If the claim is more like “It might be a good idea to avoid these music styles because they often occur in occultic settings” this is easier to support and also invites the mind to engage in possibilities vs. immediately feeling the urge to smash—which is what categorical reasoning tends to evoke.
I don’t know whom to credit for this insight but somebody clued me in years ago to the fact that it is almost always (maybe ‘always’?) better to make a strong argument for a small claim than it is to make a weak argument for a large claim.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
What I’m trying to get at is how you are defining your categories. You are trying use categorical reasoning, but your categories lack clarity.
They have to be clear before they can be proved to be applicable. The trouble with categorical reasoning is that you have to have two rock solid premises to establish your conclusion.
Thanks for your lengthy comments about categorical reasoning, etc.
We approach determining what is true in different ways. For me, direct biblical statements and examples are more than sufficient to establish the validity of categorical rejection.
From my study of the numerous passages in Scripture about the occult, I have no doubt that the approach that I have set forth earlier in this thread concerning music and the occult is correct.
The only way forward that I see in having additional profitable interaction is to discuss specific passages and what they reveal. Given the extreme difficulty that I had in getting anyone to actually examine what God has revealed specifically about the occult in Acts 13, I question whether discussing other passages and what they specifically reveal would be any easier.
From my study of the numerous passages in Scripture about the occult, I have no doubt that the approach that I have set forth earlier in this thread concerning music and the occult is correct.
It’s good that you have no doubt, but I think you want more than that. You want to persuade at least some others, am I right? This will require reasoning that is clear and valid.
But apart from the question of approach to argument/persuasion, there are problems with several of your basic assumptions.
I’m going to list five points that you’ll probably feel strongly negative about immediately, but I hope that, after I explain and support, they’ll be some food for further thought on this topic.
- The supernatural is absolutely real, but the natural is never really separate from it.
- Supernatural evil is also real, but there is no such thing as natural evil.
- All humans are either children of light or children of darkness.
- ‘The unfruitful works of darkness’ is a poignant and picturesque term meaning “sin.”
- The Bible does not take ‘the occult’ more seriously than other forms of error and sin.
That’s the list. On to brief explanation and support.
#1 To say it another way, all of the natural is also supernatural. Consider this:
- God is a supernatural being and He created all of the natural (Genesis 1).
- God, the supernatural being, is also actively sustaining all of the natural (Col 1:17, Heb 1:3).
So, everything natural is also supernatural, and the apparent non-superalnaturalness of the natural is a result of our limited senses. Pictured as a Venn diagram, the natural is a circle completely enclosed in the larger circle of ‘the supernatural.’
Nothing is spooky in any special way because, if we could see it, everything is spooky. (I think C.S. Lewis put it as “the world is numinous.”). So the category “the supernatural” is equal to the category ”everything that is.”
#2 All evil is supernatural evil. It might also be natural evil. To say it another way, all evil is spiritual; it might also be physical. Consider this:
- Humans are made in the image of God are spiritual beings as well as physical beings. (Gen 1.27, 1 Thess 5.23, Num 16.22)
- Every human lives forever somewhere because we are not merely our bodies. (John 3.16, 2 Thess 1:9)
(I’m getting pretty tired… hopefully this will still be coherent. I might cut it short. It’s all in my head, but writing is work!)
To sum up this one: Everything humans do, they do both physically and spiritually: both naturally and supernaturally. The category of “supernatural evil” is equal to the category “all evil.”
#3 All Christians were “formerly darkness” (Eph 5.8). This means “darkness” = all unbelievers. It’s not a special few. That means the relationship with unbelievers taught in 1 Cor 5:9-10 and openly demonstrated by Jesus (Mark 2.15, etc.) includes children of darkness and those involved in darkness.
#4 This goes hand in hand with #3. The “unfruitful works of darkness” (Eph 5.11) are, in the context, the deeds of the children of darkness which is everybody who is not born again (Eph 5.8). The ‘unfruitful works of darkness’ are, again in the context, in contrast with “the fruit of light” (Eph 5.9), which is not “supernatural light” or “anti-occultic light” or anything special in that way. It’s simply the “good and right and true,” implying that the unfruitful works of darkness are simply the “bad and wrong and false.” (There is no evidence here that the “shameful” of Eph 5:12 has something to do with occult. Paul’s point seems to be that some especially disgraceful things people do in private reveal the true nature of all the works of darkness—that is, all sin.)
#5 Admittedly, this one takes more study and work than I want to do right now. For the moment, just this: Study all of the things called “abominations” in the OT and all the things punishable by death under the Mosaic covenant and note how few of them have to do with “the occult”—and also how ordinary some of them are (e.g. for “abomination”: giving money to God that came from prostitution Deut 23.18… or being dishonest in business Deut 25.16 ).
To sum up, there isn’t really any such category as “supernatural evil” as distinct from other evil, nor are the practices of divination, and witchcraft, etc. represented as a special category of sins that require more caution and separation than all other varieties of sin. To say it another way, the Bible identifies lots of sins that are as serious, or more serious, than those people think of as “occult practices” and also just as, or more, deceptive and alluring.
(Note that I did not say all sins are equally serious, damaging, or alluring. Nor did I say that divination and witchcraft are no more serious than any other sin. The point is that lots of sins are equally serious/alluring with “occult” and some are more so.)
I could go into the topic of how Satan’s most damaging work is not the stuff obviously associated with him and his demons—but rather the stuff that seems perfectly natural and innocent. (Jesus warned about wolves in sheep’s clothing… not wolves in wolves’ clothing). That’s a couple more thousand words, so I’ll just stop here.
It is not valid to reason that something must be rejected because it has some (not well defined) connection to “supernatural evil” or “evil men” when literally everything humans do has a connection to supernatural evil and evil men.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
To sum up, there isn’t really any such category as “supernatural evil” as distinct from other evil, nor are the practices of divination, and witchcraft, etc. represented as a special category of sins that require more caution and separation than all other varieties of sin. To say it another way, the Bible identifies lots of sins that are as serious, or more serious, than those people think of as “occult practices” and also just as, or more, deceptive and alluring.
I disagree. You are using supernatural as if all it means is pertaining to something that is spiritual. That is not how I am using the term, and that is not how the term is defined. For example, Merriam Webster's dictionary online defines it is as follows:
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
In proper usage, "supernatural" designates that which pertains to higher-order beings that are greater than humans, have knowledge that no humans can have on their own, have powers that no humans can have on their own, and have existed longer than any humans or any other lower life forms have.
(Note that I did not say all sins are equally serious, damaging, or alluring. Nor did I say that divination and witchcraft are no more serious than any other sin. The point is that lots of sins are equally serious/alluring with “occult” and some are more so.)
Interesting claim that you hold that some sins are more serious than the occult. What are those sins and what is the biblical data to support this view?
I could go into the topic of how Satan’s most damaging work is not the stuff obviously associated with him and his demons—but rather the stuff that seems perfectly natural and innocent. (Jesus warned about wolves in sheep’s clothing… not wolves in wolves’ clothing). That’s a couple more thousand words, so I’ll just stop here.
You will have to prove this claim about Satan's most damaging work, etc. biblically.
It is not valid to reason that something must be rejected because it has some (not well defined) connection to “supernatural evil” or “evil men” when literally everything humans do has a connection to supernatural evil and evil men.
You have not shown from Scripture the validity of your view that "literally everything humans do has a connection to supernatural evil and evil men."
(There is no evidence here that the “shameful” of Eph 5:12 has something to do with occult. Paul’s point seems to be that some especially disgraceful things people do in private reveal the true nature of all the works of darkness—that is, all sin.)
I am not certain what claim you are making about the occult with these statements. If you are claiming that Eph. 5:11-12 excludes the occult just because the occult is not mentioned explicitly, your view is certainly wrong. To use that method of interpretation, you would have to say that 1 Cor. 5:9-10 has no application to practitioners of the occult because the occult is not mentioned there--which, unless I have misunderstood what you believe, is directly contrary to what you believe is the teaching of 1 Cor. 5:9-10.
You will have to prove this claim about Satan's most damaging work, etc. biblically.
We're all still waiting for you to prove biblically specific forms and instances of modern Christian worship music is really occult music and therefore off-limits to believers. Your constant demand that others do what you refuse to is pretty tiring.
Throughout the world contemporary Christian music has captured countless churches, absorbing them into the domain of semi-charismatic, worldly evangelicalism. Sometimes the preaching has largely remained sound, but for how long now that the worship ethos of such churches has so dramatically changed? Whether its victims realise it or not, the contemporary worship movement is the instrument of the hour to pull down both the conduct and the doctrinal walls of Zion. How the arch-enemy of the churches of Christ and of human souls will be straining to speed on such a catastrophe! . . .
Even the partial adoption of contemporary worship will inevitably constitute a bridge to the total acceptance of 'Christian' rock culture. Composers and writers of 'sounder' modern genre songs say themselves that their primary aim is to draw conservative churches into the fold of Christian rock, and also to hasten ecumenical advance.
--Peter Masters, "Worship or Entertainment?," 95-96
You are using supernatural as if all it means is pertaining to something that is spiritual. That is not how I am using the term
Spiritual is not measurable by the five senses. It is not material. It is not natural. It is, therefore, supernatural.
It also fits your dictionary definition.
I am not certain what claim you are making about the occult with these statements. If you are claiming that Eph. 5:11-12 excludes the occult just because the occult is not mentioned explicitly, your view is certainly wrong
Yes, that would be wrong.
I was clear in my post that all sin is in view there and that all sin—when humans are involved—is both natural and supernatural. The Bible does not use the word ‘occult’ or the word ‘supernatural,’ so I think there is some baggage muddying your thinking on these topics. Nonbiblical baggage.
So my post was aimed at some biblical worldview issues. Biblical cosmology might be the right term.
There doesn’t seem to be much chance of making myself understood on any of these topics, though, so I should probably just move on to other projects.
I’ll summarize my most recent argument one more time for any who might benefit from it.
Categorical reasoning is fragile if your premises are not either (a) obvious and accepted by all or (b) inspired revelation. But premises with unclear and freighted terms also make the argument fragile.
So arguing against music styles based on association with “the occult” is inherently fragile. There is a great deal to clarify and prove in the premises, and even then, the conclusion would need clarifying and applying to specific musical elements, etc.
I feel bad for anyone setting out to do that, because it’s a very, very tall order to make that kind of argument successfully and then another tall order to make it practical.
On “the supernatural” and “supernatural evil” and “evil people” and “the occult” (all key terms in the argument), only one of these is a biblical term (evil people) and the Bible doesn’t support limiting it to people involved in “the occult” or “supernatural evil.”
The Bible also does not separate the natural and supernatural into tidy separate categories. The supernatural overlaps entirely with the natural.
The reality of “spirit,” and the spiritual realm (see Eph 6.12), etc., is the closest thing the Bible has to the term “supernatural.” As a biblical category, it completely overlaps the physical and natural, though it extends well beyond it.
The point of all that: an argument to treat music associated with “the occult” in a special way can’t be sustained if “the occult” is not a special thing. Biblically, you’d have to argue that “music associated with any kind of evil or any kind of evil people must be avoided.”
With categories that broad, it’s even more clear why a categorical argument is not going to work.
It would fail the test of internal consistency, since literally everything is associated with some kind of evil or evil people. (e.g., a hundred posts or so ago, I noted that some atheists wear socks.)
Finally, advice to Rajesh: If you want to have a belief, that’s great. But if you want to be persuasive, you’ll get a lot further if you make a smaller probabilistic claim and rally evidence for that. This is better than trying to support a sweeping generalization that is, itself, based on reasoning from other sweeping generalizations.
My own view on music styles and associations…
I do believe that music styles, like styles of anything else (painting, poetry, architecture, fashion, sculpture—you name it), carries meaning in the context of a culture.
I also believe that meaning is complex, both in expression and interpretation on the receiving end.
That meaning is lost as the context changes: different time, different place, etc.
“Meaning” is not itself an ethical switch. That is, you can hear a message and simply decide to reject it. It is not automatically a sin to hear a message—even on purpose.
We are receiving cultural messages all the time, and also participating in repeating them. The clothes we wear, our hairstyles, our language idioms, the styling of the cars we drive—on and on it goes. The meanings involved and the impacts of those messages are complex and involved. It’s a living ecosystem.
We can sometimes spot something—especially something new—in a culture that is incompatible with Christian participation/use. A whole lot of the time, we can’t. The culture is the sea we’re swimming in. There’s a built in perspective problem.
So… case by case basis with all this stuff, and lots of grace and humility toward people who see it differently. I’m all for making claims and trying to prove them and disprove them. It’s part of the pursuit of truth, but with things like “styles” and their fitness for various purposes—wisdom calls for appropriate levels of certainty.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Many churches that have included singable, doctrinally sound CCM (Getty, CityAlight, Sovereign Grace, etc.) and a contemporary style of worship that allows for more casual attire have been actively involved in building relationships within the local body, have been aggressive in church planting and revitalization, and have embraced confessional Christianity. They have also written and published books, etc. that have been of benefit to the wider Body of Christ. They are also not distancing themselves from other Christians over secondary cultural issues.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
@Ron’s comment:
It seems like part of the curse of sin on the world—along with the finiteness of being human—means there are tradeoffs with every option. The church I am part of now is more casual and uses a good bit of Getty, CityAlight, Sovereign Grace, etc.
It has its advantages. In my heart of hearts, I’m stuck in the 17th century or so. I think I’d love it if everything we sang was that century or older, if we had a gloria patri and responsive readings and other high-church liturgical stuff every Sunday. And we all wore dark suits and long dresses.
The tradeoffs there are a) stronger continuity with Christian history (and the humility that goes with that), b) better connection with the transcendence of God, and c) better elevation of our identity above ‘ordinary life’/’the world.’
But with the more relaxed, newish approach we have a) stronger connection to living out the faith right now and b) better connection with the immanence of God, and also c) better familial, one-another life. A ‘relaxed’ place of worship is a lot more like a home than a cathedral could ever be.
The ideal set of tradeoffs, in my view, would somehow incorporate both into church life. But that’s a lot to ask of your typical small local church.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The Bible does not use the word ‘occult’ or the word ‘supernatural,’ so I think there is some baggage muddying your thinking on these topics. Nonbiblical baggage.
Nope. You are not taking into account biblical truths that apply to evil done by Satan and his demons that do not ever apply to evil done by humans alone.
Satan and his demons are incomparably superior beings to human beings. The fact that both are spirit beings does not mean that they are spirit beings in all the same ways. The evil done by humans where there is no involvement of Satan and his demons is not the same as the evil done where there is involvement of Satan and his demons.
The occult is therefore most certainly different in character than all other evil done by humans because it involves the actions of Satan and his demons in ways that all other evil done only by humans does not.
For example, no humans have ever or will ever be able to put into the heart of other humans to sin in the way that Satan and his demons have done, can do, and do. Scripture explicitly attests in several passages to such human sinfulness resulting from demonic activity in those humans so that their sinfulness is not just human sinfulness.
In addition, no humans on their own have supernatural knowledge of heavenly realities that are not revealed in the Bible, but Satan and all his demons do have such knowledge. They are able to impart knowledge to sinful humans that the sinful humans would never have had apart from that demonic input. Through the demonic impartation of such knowledge, humans involved in the occult engage in supernatural evil that is entirely different from all other human evil.
For example, through their enchantments, the miraculous evil deeds of Pharaoh's magicians that they did in opposition to Moses and Aaron were sinful deeds of an entirely different character than anything any humans have ever done or ever will do or ever can do on their own.
I could go on about such things and provide Scripture to fully support those truths. We will never come to a meeting of the minds until you are willing to acknowledge that the Bible reveals such human sinfulness that involves the activities of Satan and his demons in ways that all other human sinfulness does not.
The evil done by humans where there is no involvement of Satan and his demons is not the same as the evil done where there is involvement of Satan and his demons.
Out of curiosity, Rajesh, how would you know if an evil act is committed without any demonic involvement? Is there any objective, biblical criteria for differentiating between them besides the obvious and clear incidents in Scripture where Satan or demons are said to act?
Out of curiosity, Rajesh, how would you know if an evil act is committed without any demonic involvement? Is there any objective, biblical criteria for differentiating between them besides the obvious and clear incidents in Scripture where Satan or demons are said to act?
In contrast to the passages where there is direct revelation given about demonic involvement in human sinfulness, the Bible relates a vast number of other specific, actual instances of human sinfulness where no revelation is given about any demonic involvement in those acts of sinfulness. In my understanding, the Spirit intends that we learn from this notable difference among the recorded acts of human sinfulness that we do not have a legitimate basis to attribute all acts of human sinfulness to (direct) demonic involvement.
In confirmation of this understanding, the NT tells us that Eve was deceived by the serpent so that she transgressed, but Adam was not deceived when he sinned.
In the world today, the main basis that we seem to have to hold that there is demonic involvement in human sinfulness is when people engage in activities that put humans in contact with demons (through sorcery, witchcraft, divination, and other such occult activities or through eating in a worship context what has been offered to an idol). Given what Scripture reveals about all such demonic practices, the believer must categorically reject any and all activities and their products where the participants themselves say that their intent is contact and interaction with demons.
Factual information from various sources informs us that there are many such occult musical practices in nearly all parts of the world. All such practices and their distinctive musical products (such as human skull drums) must be categorically rejected.
Factual information from various sources informs us that there are many such occult musical practices in nearly all parts of the world.
This vague answer is pretty much what I'd expect. It's simply not possible to specify that one action is demonically influenced and another is not.
Of course an evil act in which someone says they're being influenced by Satan would be clear, but otherwise you still haven't given any objective, biblical criteria for showing that an evil act is demonic as opposed to being exclusively human. Besides the obvious (for which we don't really need the categories like the ones you've asserted), I don't see how this is helpful at all.
Discussion