We Must Heed the Vital Message of 1 Corinthians 10:18-20

1 Corinthians 10:18-20 provides vital instruction that every believer must heed:

1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

To eat in a worship context of what has been sacrificed on an altar to an idol is to be a partaker of the altar. To do so is also to have fellowship with demons!

Such fellowship with demons is not contingent upon a person's having to offer the sacrifices himself. Anyone who eats of such sacrifices comes into fellowship with demons.

The passage also does not provide any basis to say or to hold that this only happens sometimes--in a worship context, anyone who eats what has been sacrificed to an idol has fellowship with demons. God does not want any humans to have fellowship with demons!

36032 reads
Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Let's move now to Ananias:

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Certainly, the Spirit knew whether Satan possessed Ananias or not. The Spirit, however, did not inspire Luke to record that Peter said, "Ananias, why hath Satan possessed you to lie to the Holy Ghost?"

What Peter did say and what the Spirit inspired to be recorded for our profit is Peter's saying that Satan filled Ananias' heart. The verb used here is the same verb used in the command in Eph. 5:18 when God commands Christians to be filled with the Spirit. That command is a command for Christians to be controlled by the Spirit.

Because the Spirit inspired Luke to use that same verb in Acts 5:3, we know with certainty that the devil was controlling Ananias' heart. This passage therefore refutes the notion that saying that people are controlled but not possessed is "dodging" the hard questions.

Anyone who does assert that Ananias was possessed has to explain why the Spirit did not use the specific terminology for possession that He inspired Luke to use in many passages in Luke-Acts. He also has to explain how the other believers were not able to tell that Ananias was possessed.

So now tell me why it is important, necessary, etc to establish whether people who in a worship context consume what is offered to an idol in a worship context are possessed or not.

Tell me also how it is a dodge to refuse to say whether people are possessed and yet say that they are under strong demonic influence.

The reason i was asking so much about possession was because you were using possession type descriptions to describe those people who were in fellowship with demons. I was hoping for a conversation like this much earlier in the thread, so I could see some examples of what you think of as "control."

So let's look at Ananias. Do you see "filling the heart" as being the same as "control"? It seems to me that Satan filled the hart of Ananias with a desire, the desire to look good in front of the Apostles. Ananias satisfied that desire by lying to the Apostles, but the lie wasn't just to the Apostles. It was also to the Holy Ghost, and it was sin. Do you think Satan "controlled" Ananias in such a way that he was unable to keep from committing this sin? I don't believe you think that, and neither do I. So where is the "control"? To me, he was completely in charge of his own decision, and his decision to lie was something he did "in commonality" with Satan. Satan is the father of lies, after all. So this example of Ananias is actually an example of the way I've been describing "fellowship with demons" in the past. By lying, Ananias was identifying with the rebellion of Satan. He was "walking in the same direction" as Satan.

How do you see the example of Ananias as "control" by Satan? Perhaps you should tell me how you define "control."

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

So let's look at Ananias. Do you see "filling the heart" as being the same as "control"? It seems to me that Satan filled the hart of Ananias with a desire, the desire to look good in front of the Apostles. Ananias satisfied that desire by lying to the Apostles, but the lie wasn't just to the Apostles. It was also to the Holy Ghost, and it was sin. Do you think Satan "controlled" Ananias in such a way that he was unable to keep from committing this sin? I don't believe you think that, and neither do I. So where is the "control"? To me, he was completely in charge of his own decision, and his decision to lie was something he did "in commonality" with Satan. Satan is the father of lies, after all. So this example of Ananias is actually an example of the way I've been describing "fellowship with demons" in the past. By lying, Ananias was identifying with the rebellion of Satan. He was "walking in the same direction" as Satan.

How do you see the example of Ananias as "control" by Satan? Perhaps you should tell me how you define "control."

Because the Bible does not give us any details about how Satan did this, any such discussion would be speculative nonsense about things (how a supernatural being works in the spiritual realm of the inner man of a human) that are humanly unknowable. I am not going to waste any time discussing such things.

Was Ananias possessed or not? If not, why did the devil not possess him so that he could do the worst thing possible to him? 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Because the Bible does not give us any details about how Satan did this, any such discussion would be speculative nonsense about things (how a supernatural being works in the spiritual realm of the inner man of a human) that are humanly unknowable. I am not going to waste any time discussing such things.

Was Ananias possessed or not? If not, why did the devil not possess him so that he could do the worst thing possible to him? 

So why don't you consider your prior descriptions of "demonic influence" in the previous 24 pages of this thread as speculative nonsense? It seems to me "demonic influence" would also be "how a supernatural being works in the spiritual realm of the inner man of a human." Are you going to stop wasting time discussing demonic influence?

I already described what I saw Satan doing in the life of Ananias? Did you not understand what I had written?

Besides, this past Friday at 11:48 pm, I wrote, "Sure, my understanding does not have demons doing their ultimate worst when humans worship them." Did you forget I wrote this? Why would you even think my position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn't even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan? I'm not the one who's been giving speculative assertions about what "demonic influence" entails in the life of an idol worshipper, nor have I been speculating about some sort "demonic influence" existing in music produced by idol worshippers.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Quote:
Furthermore, no, my position is not "that demons are not controlling all the way to possession when they are worshipped." I have never said that I know with certainty whether demons do or do not possess the people who in a worship context eat things that have been sacrificed to an idol in a worship context.

 

Being demonically possessed is specific biblical terminology that I am not going to use when the Bible does not provide the revelation necessary for us to be able to tell specifically whether it takes place in a given setting. My not answering every possible question that you want to ask about demon possession does not in any way show that my position is false. Many of the things that you want specific answers to are not humanly knowable.

 

I figured you would eventually use the "not humanly knowable" dodge. You've made a bunch of statements in this thread about why demonic influence makes certain music unacceptable to God, but when I try to ask specifics about where in the Bible you these effects of demonic influence, you present verses that deal either with demonic activity that happens to all unbelievers or with demonic activity that happens in possession. Yet you assert that the "fellowship with demons" is a demonic activity that is greater than the first and not necessarily the latter. Your assertion of this category with special influence effects seems to be a leap of logic, yet when I press you for specifics to support this leap, you fall back on "not humanly knowable." It's like watching a repetitous tap dance routine.

You asserted in this previous comment that I used "the not humanly knowable dodge." My statements reflected then and reflect now the reality that human beings cannot know many things about demonic activity, including many details and specifics about demonic possession vs. other degrees of demonic influence.

I have now presented two passages that explicitly speak about demonic activity that show that demons do influence humans to varying extents that are not the "demonic activity that happens to all unbelievers" and that cannot be humanly proven or known to be the "demonic activity that happens in possession." If you disagree, you are welcome to make your case.

Your claim that I used "the not humanly knowable dodge" is proven false. I have not used any such dodge in any of my statements, and your assertion that I have is a false assertion.

 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

You asserted in this previous comment that I used "the not humanly knowable dodge." My statements reflected then and reflect now the reality that human beings cannot know many things about demonic activity, including many details and specifics about demonic possession vs. other degrees of demonic influence.

I have now presented two passages that explicitly speak about demonic activity that show that demons do influence humans to varying extents that are not the "demonic activity that happens to all unbelievers" and that cannot be humanly proven or known to be the "demonic activity that happens in possession." If you disagree, you are welcome to make your case.

Your claim that I used "the not humanly knowable dodge" is proven false. I have not used any such dodge in any of my statements, and your assertion that I have is a false assertion.

Yes, you provided two passages, but I'm not sure why exactly you provided them. You don't seem to want to discuss them. Did you present them just to prove a point that I have already acknowledged? I've already said that their are more forms of demonic activity than just temptation and possession. I simply used used those terms as two ends of a spectrum, which would then include layers in between.

Did you present them to make some point about demonic "control"? If so, then why didn't you give me your perspective of "control" based on your own position when I asked you questions about your examples? Surely your own position is humanly knowable, or you wouldn't be holding it. It looks to me like you are ignoring my questions, which I would call dodging. It seems like the word "dodge" hits a sore spot with you, but that is the first word that came to my mind when thinking of a word to describe when someone changes the subject or refuses to answer a valid question.

Bringing up this "previous comment' even seems like a dodge, because I've asked you a number of questions in my last few posts. Instead of dealing with my questions, you complain again that I have accused you of dodging, and you insist I am making a "false assertion." all the while dodging my questions. It's quite ironic.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Did you present them to make some point about demonic "control"?

Of course, I presented them to make points about demonic control. Both passages show that demanding definitive declaration of whether people who are being influenced by demons are possessed or not is an unbiblical demand that is humanly impossible to fulfill.

No matter how many times you say that I am dodging or you ask me the same kinds of questions, you are going to get the same answer from me: God has not provided exhaustive, detailed, specific revelation about how demonic possession or even demonic control works to answer all kinds of questions that people want to ask. Such things are humanly unknowable. That is the only answer that you are going to get from me about how the devil possesses or controls people, etc because that is the only right answer that any human can give to such questions.

Because the Bible explicitly provides many passages that indisputably show that the devil does influence humans in various ways and degrees, validly saying that demonic influence and control occurs in a given setting does not require being able to explain all the details of how that influence and control specifically works. As I have already said such explanations cannot be provided by any humans.

Acts 5:3 indisputably proves that the devil can control the heart of a human being even when we have no information that the human being has engaged in idolatrous consumption of things offered to an idol. Because that is true, we have biblical basis to hold that what the devil does do to people who do engage in idolatrous consumption of things offered to an idol is something that goes beyond even controlling their hearts to sin against God.

RajeshG's picture

Scripture reveals that when a group of believers is filled with the Spirit, the first result of that filling is their ministering musically to one another with music that is acceptable to God:

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Ephesians 5:18 καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι, 19  λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς [ἐν] ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ,

In strong contrast to Eph. 5:18-19, Acts 5:3 reveals to us that Satan can fill the heart of humans to sin against God:

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

BGT Acts 5:3 εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Πέτρος· Ἁνανία, διὰ τί ἐπλήρωσεν ὁ σατανᾶς τὴν καρδίαν σου, ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ νοσφίσασθαι ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ χωρίου;

Noting that the same verb for filling (πληρόω) is used in both Eph. 5:18 and Acts 5:3, and considering that Exodus 32:6 points to the reality that the idolaters in the GCI were under strong demonic influence because they had idolatrously consumed things offered to an idol, it is noteworthy that the first specific thing that God reveals in some detail (2 verses) to us about the activities of those demonically influenced idolaters was about the music that they were producing under that influence:

Exodus 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.

This comparison of these passages reveals that the passages show that control by the Spirit produces godly music in true worshipers (Eph. 5:18-19), and control by demons produces ungodly music in false worshipers (Exod. 32:6; 32:17-18).

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Acts 5:3 indisputably proves that the devil can control the heart of a human being even when we have no information that the human being has engaged in idolatrous consumption of things offered to an idol. Because that is true, we have biblical basis to hold that what the devil does do to people who do engage in idolatrous consumption of things offered to an idol is something that goes beyond even controlling their hearts to sin against God.

But I don't see that Acts 5:3 proves Satanic control. especially not "indisputably." If your heart gets filled with a temptation, that doesn't mean that you lose control over your own decisions. So there is something about the concept of "control" that you are thinking about in a different way than I am, and I haven't figured out yet how to put that difference into words. You mentioned the verse about being "filled with the Spirit," but that filling doesn't control us to the extent that it overrides our intentional decisions. We still have to make intentional decisions regarding whether we will walk according to the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh, or walk according to the Spirit, fulfilling the desires of the Spirit.

Even if Ananias was controlled, the example of Ananias does not give "biblical basis" to show that "participation with demons" is an even greater control. That is an interpretive assessment on your part, not something that is directly stated in Scripture. In fact, it sounds awfully close to a "speculation" that you have told me you refuse to engage in. That sentence is the kind of declarative statement I am talking about when I say you make these declarative statements, then when I would try to dig into what evidence you have that it "goes beyond even controlling," you would stop discussing what you just said, and you would tell me we can't humanly know.

I've said all along that there are things which the Scriptures aren't clear about regarding demon activity. Yet you are making this statement that there is "biblical basis" for saying fellowship with demons "goes beyond even controlling their hearts to sin." I'm just trying to figure out why you think there's a biblical basis for saying that. Your examples certainly don't prove it.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Scripture reveals that when a group of believers is filled with the Spirit, the first result of that filling is their ministering musically to one another with music that is acceptable to God:

According to Acts 10:44-46, the first result of being filled with the Spirit was speaking in tongues.

Making music is one of the commands that Spirit filled people should obey, but the Bible doesn't specify any particular musical style as being off limits in Ephesians 5:18.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Scripture reveals that when a group of believers is filled with the Spirit, the first result of that filling is their ministering musically to one another with music that is acceptable to God:

 

According to Acts 10:44-46, the first result of being filled with the Spirit was speaking in tongues.

Making music is one of the commands that Spirit filled people should obey, but the Bible doesn't specify any particular musical style as being off limits in Ephesians 5:18.

The Bible does not say that the people in Acts 10:44-46 were filled with the Spirit.The Spirit does not use the verb (πληρόω) in any of the passages (Acts 10, 11, 15) about that event to say that those people were filled with the Spirit.

Moreover, there is no command in Eph. 5:18-19 to make music:

Ephesians 5:19 λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς [ἐν] ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ

The verb forms used here (λαλοῦντες and ψάλλοντες) are not commands; they are participles. You can try to show that they carry imperatival force here, but they are not commands. The command here is to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18).

Musicians who are controlled by the Holy Spirit are not going to use ungodly styles/genres created by reprobate idolaters who are "inventors of evil things" (Rom. 1:30). If you want to say that Romans 1:30 does not apply to musical styles/genres, the burden of proof is on you to show how and why that statement does not apply to musical styles.

You also have the burden of proof of showing how the Bible teaches that God accepts the use of all styles/genres in worship. If you cannot prove that view from the Bible, you have no basis to say that people who are filled with the Spirit will ever use in worship ungodly styles sourced in the occult or other evil activities of humans.
 

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Acts 5:3 indisputably proves that the devil can control the heart of a human being even when we have no information that the human being has engaged in idolatrous consumption of things offered to an idol. Because that is true, we have biblical basis to hold that what the devil does do to people who do engage in idolatrous consumption of things offered to an idol is something that goes beyond even controlling their hearts to sin against God.

 

But I don't see that Acts 5:3 proves Satanic control. especially not "indisputably." If your heart gets filled with a temptation, that doesn't mean that you lose control over your own decisions. So there is something about the concept of "control" that you are thinking about in a different way than I am, and I haven't figured out yet how to put that difference into words. . . .

Even if Ananias was controlled, the example of Ananias does not give "biblical basis" to show that "participation with demons" is an even greater control. 

When a person becomes drunk, they obviously are not in a state of merely being tempted by wine. When they are drunk, they have lost control of themselves and are under the control of the alcohol. The contrast in Eph. 5:18 is between a command not to be drunken with wine (totally under its control) and a command to be filled with the Spirit (totally under the control of the Spirit).

The verb πληρόω in Eph. 5:18 and Acts 5:3 never means to tempt someone. The Spirit uses the verb πειράζω many times in the NT to speak of tempting. Acts 5:3 does not teach that Satan merely tempted Ananias to lie to God. It teaches that Satan controlled Ananias' heart to lie to God.

Acts 5:3 teaches that Satan controlled the heart of someone who at least professed to be a believer. We do not have any revelation about how or why Ananias' heart was controlled by the devil. Had Ananias' been involved in any other known egregious sins in his life at that time, Peter and other church leaders would have confronted him about those sins prior to his sin of lying to the Spirit.

In the case of unbelievers who idolatrously consume what has been offered to an idol, we know that they are guilty of committing egregious sins against God by their doing so. When unbelievers give the devil such a place in their lives, we can be confident that the devil exerts a far stronger control on them than he did on Ananias.

It's telling that in an earlier comment, you wrote the following:

Kevin Miller wrote:

Why would you even think my position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn't even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan?

It's striking that in this previous comment, you acknowledge your perplexity about why I would "even think [your] position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn't even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan." In this statement, you speak in a way that points to your believing to be true the very thing that you are now trying to say cannot be said, namely, that worship of demons would be something more evil than what we know about what Ananias did.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Musicians who are controlled by the Holy Spirit are not going to use ungodly styles/genres created by reprobate idolaters who are "inventors of evil things" (Rom. 1:30). If you want to say that Romans 1:30 does not apply to musical styles/genres, the burden of proof is on you to show how and why that statement does not apply to musical styles.

You also have the burden of proof of showing how the Bible teaches that God accepts the use of all styles/genres in worship. If you cannot prove that view from the Bible, you have no basis to say that people who are filled with the Spirit will ever use in worship ungodly styles sourced in the occult or other evil activities of humans.

This brings us right back to the question of whether one is able to know that a style is "created by a reprobate idolater." How can we tell if a style is "sourced in the occult"? Earlier you said, "I have rejected and continue to reject categorically all attempts to determine musicologically what characteristics of demonically influenced music make it unacceptable to God because making such determinations is humanly impossible. We are limited to knowing that what makes all such musics ungodly is the demonic agency in the creation/production/playing, etc. of that music." Is there some way for humans to determine "demonic agency" in a style. We can't do it musicologically, so how can it be done?

I can even concede that God doesn't accept all styles in worship, but how would conceding that help me in my musical decisions? Maybe God hates opera. I have no idea who started the opera style, so I don't know if it was started by a reprobate idolater. Is there any way to truly know that about any musical style? If a certain opera composer were to claim that they composed their opera in honor of Satan, would that make all opera off limits for worship?

You take the phrase "inventors of evil things" and act like it supports your position against styles of music, but even though a style may be a "thing," you would still have to defend any claim that a particular style is an "evil" thing. Some styles may be, but if it is made evil by something humans are unable to distinguish, then humans are unable to tell that it is evil. Does this condemnation of evil things invented by idolaters also apply to transportation styles? if bicycles were invented by an idolater, would that make riding a bicycle displeasing to God? You sometimes evade my questions by saying you only meant something being used "in worship," so I'll have the person riding the bike be using the bike to travel as they witness to sinners. Surely that is a worshipful act that would be displeasing if done on an evil bicycle, no? Even if there was some odd chance that some transportation styles are evil things, then we would still have to determine in some way which styles are evil. Your position doesn't give us any way to do that with music.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

When a person becomes drunk, they obviously are not in a state of merely being tempted by wine. When they are drunk, they have lost control of themselves and are under the control of the alcohol. The contrast in Eph. 5:18 is between a command not to be drunken with wine (totally under its control) and a command to be filled with the Spirit (totally under the control of the Spirit).

The verb πληρόω in Eph. 5:18 and Acts 5:3 never means to tempt someone. The Spirit uses the verb πειράζω many times in the NT to speak of tempting. Acts 5:3 does not teach that Satan merely tempted Ananias to lie to God. It teaches that Satan controlled Ananias' heart to lie to God.

Acts 5:3 teaches that Satan controlled the heart of someone who at least professed to be a believer. We do not have any revelation about how or why Ananias' heart was controlled by the devil. Had Ananias' been involved in any other known egregious sins in his life at that time, Peter and other church leaders would have confronted him about those sins prior to his sin of lying to the Spirit.

Do you really want to keep making the analogy between the filling of the Spirit and the filling of the heart of Ananias. To me the only similarity is the word "filled" and the fact that it involves a supernatural being. The control by the Holy spirit is dependent upon the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Was there an indwelling presence in Ananias? We've already determined that the Scriptures don't support such an assertion. Your analogy seems to be comparing one type of control to a completely different kind of control.

Quote:
In the case of unbelievers who idolatrously consume what has been offered to an idol, we know that they are guilty of committing egregious sins against God by their doing so. When unbelievers give the devil such a place in their lives, we can be confident that the devil exerts a far stronger control on them than he did on Ananias.
How can we be confident of that? You keep making assertions that sound to me simply like opinions.

Quote:
It's telling that in an earlier comment, you wrote the following:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Why would you even think my position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn't even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan?

 

 

It's striking that in this previous comment, you acknowledge your perplexity about why I would "even think [your] position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn't even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan." In this statement, you speak in a way that points to your believing to be true the very thing that you are now trying to say cannot be said, namely, that worship of demons would be something more evil than what we know about what Ananias did.

I spoke that way because I understand YOUR position to be that worshipping demons would be more evil than what Ananias did. I was asking 'How can you think this is my position, when it doesn't even meet the standard for YOUR position." That doesn't point to me thinking your position is true. It points to my perplexity at having you make up positions that you think I hold, and the position you made up was even stronger than the one you yourself hold.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Quote:
It's telling that in an earlier comment, you wrote the following:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Why would you even think my position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn't even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan?

 

 

It's striking that in this previous comment, you acknowledge your perplexity about why I would "even think [your] position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn't even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan." In this statement, you speak in a way that points to your believing to be true the very thing that you are now trying to say cannot be said, namely, that worship of demons would be something more evil than what we know about what Ananias did.

 

I spoke that way because I understand YOUR position to be that worshipping demons would be more evil than what Ananias did. I was asking 'How can you think this is my position, when it doesn't even meet the standard for YOUR position." That doesn't point to me thinking your position is true. It points to my perplexity at having you make up positions that you think I hold, and the position you made up was even stronger than the one you yourself hold.

In an earlier comment, you made a statement that reflects a persistent misunderstanding on your part about what my position is:

Kevin Miller wrote:

Sure, my understanding does not have demons doing their ultimate worst when humans worship them. But then, your perspective doesn't either, since demons have the ability to possess people, but your position is that demons are not controlling all the way to possession when they are worshipped. Why isn't your position appreciating the full nature of what demons are able to do to people? [bold added to original]

My position is not "that demons are not controlling all the way to possession when they are worshipped"! My position is that we cannot say whether they do or do not possess people who are actively worshiping them because the Bible does not provide the data necessary to be able to say with certainty whether they do or do not possess people who idolatrously consume things sacrificed to an idol.

It is entirely possible that they do possess some or all the idolaters who idolatrously consume what has been sacrificed to an idol, but the Bible does not provide the information necessary for us as humans to know whether they do or do not do so.

Perhaps having this misunderstanding corrected may help you to understand the other things that I have been saying. 

 

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Musicians who are controlled by the Holy Spirit are not going to use ungodly styles/genres created by reprobate idolaters who are "inventors of evil things" (Rom. 1:30). If you want to say that Romans 1:30 does not apply to musical styles/genres, the burden of proof is on you to show how and why that statement does not apply to musical styles.

You also have the burden of proof of showing how the Bible teaches that God accepts the use of all styles/genres in worship. If you cannot prove that view from the Bible, you have no basis to say that people who are filled with the Spirit will ever use in worship ungodly styles sourced in the occult or other evil activities of humans.

This brings us right back to the question of whether one is able to know that a style is "created by a reprobate idolater." How can we tell if a style is "sourced in the occult"? Earlier you said, "I have rejected and continue to reject categorically all attempts to determine musicologically what characteristics of demonically influenced music make it unacceptable to God because making such determinations is humanly impossible. We are limited to knowing that what makes all such musics ungodly is the demonic agency in the creation/production/playing, etc. of that music." Is there some way for humans to determine "demonic agency" in a style. We can't do it musicologically, so how can it be done?

 

I can even concede that God doesn't accept all styles in worship, but how would conceding that help me in my musical decisions? Maybe God hates opera. I have no idea who started the opera style, so I don't know if it was started by a reprobate idolater. Is there any way to truly know that about any musical style? If a certain opera composer were to claim that they composed their opera in honor of Satan, would that make all opera off limits for worship?

You take the phrase "inventors of evil things" and act like it supports your position against styles of music, but even though a style may be a "thing," you would still have to defend any claim that a particular style is an "evil" thing. Some styles may be, but if it is made evil by something humans are unable to distinguish, then humans are unable to tell that it is evil. Does this condemnation of evil things invented by idolaters also apply to transportation styles? if bicycles were invented by an idolater, would that make riding a bicycle displeasing to God? You sometimes evade my questions by saying you only meant something being used "in worship," so I'll have the person riding the bike be using the bike to travel as they witness to sinners. Surely that is a worshipful act that would be displeasing if done on an evil bicycle, no? Even if there was some odd chance that some transportation styles are evil things, then we would still have to determine in some way which styles are evil. Your position doesn't give us any way to do that with music.

Scripture teaches us all of the following truths:

1. Worship is of supreme importance to God.

2. Music is exceedingly important to God.

3. Corrupting, defiling, and perverting divine worship is an exceedingly important objective of Satan and his demons.

4. Humans who idolatrously consume things offered to idols partner with demons in what they do.

5. Humans who had idolatrously consumed things offered to an idol partnered with demons in producing music as part of their idolatry.

6. When Satan and his demons control wicked humans to engage in idolatrous worship, they direct them not only to worship the wrong object but also to do so in ungodly ways, including by offering ungodly things to the idols.

7. Reprobate idolaters who have been judged by God by His giving them over to their sinfulness are inventors of evil things.

8. God demands that His people not have anything to do with how idolaters worship their idols. He demands that His people not even inquire about how they do such things.

9. God commands His people not to have any fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.

Based on all these biblical truths (and many more that I am not stating here), we know that music produced by idolaters who have idolatrously consumed things offered to an idol and is produced by them while they are in actual acts of worshiping idolatrously is wicked music that is totally off-limits to God's people. Similarly, music sourced in/originated by/produced by and on that basis used by humans who are actively engaged in any occult practices is wicked music that is categorically off-limits to God's people.

When it is an objective historical fact that a particular type or types of music are sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities, such music must be completely rejected by God's people. CCM was birthed by people who took such music and brought it into the Church.

Christians who are musically conservative in our day are fully, biblically justified in rejecting the use of all such music in divine worship.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

When it is an objective historical fact that a particular type or types of music are sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities, such music must be completely rejected by God's people. CCM was birthed by people who took such music and brought it into the Church.

I'd be interested in seeing the source of any "objective historical fact" that you have found regarding a particular type of music that is sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities. How far back do your historical sources go regarding this music which the CCM people took?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

6. When Satan and his demons control wicked humans to engage in idolatrous worship, they direct them not only to worship the wrong object but also to do so in ungodly ways, including by offering ungodly things to the idols.

Where do you find that "Scripture teaches us" the last part of your point - "including by offering ungodly things to the idols"? That sounds like an extrapolation you are trying to insist upon in order to make a point about music, but I don't see it included in Scripture. Idolaters would offer cows in sacrifice, but I don't think the Scriptures would say that "the Israelites offered godly cows, but the idolaters offered ungodly cows." One of the most horrendous acts of idolatrous sacrifice mentioned in the Bible is when idolaters offered their own children to the fire. That is an extremely wicked way to sacrifice, but such an act of sacrifice would not make children themselves inherently ungodly. Now maybe "children" is a bad example, because all unsaved people, including unsaved children, are inherently ungodly, but that ungodliness is totally unrelated to being the object of an idolatrous sacrifice. Now I can see as how the idol itself would be an ungodly thing, but since many of the things sacrificed to idols were the same things that would be sacrificed to God, I don't see as how the things themselves are ungodly. Where do you find this principle in Scripture?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

When it is an objective historical fact that a particular type or types of music are sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities, such music must be completely rejected by God's people. CCM was birthed by people who took such music and brought it into the Church.

 

I'd be interested in seeing the source of any "objective historical fact" that you have found regarding a particular type of music that is sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities. How far back do your historical sources go regarding this music which the CCM people took?

 

I've already provided some information of that sort earlier in this thread through quotes from rock musicians themselves who said that their music was sourced in or connected to the occult. It's telling that when those statements were first made, there was not a widespread outcry from believing and unbelieving musicians alike that that information was false.

If you are seriously intent upon getting more information, I would recommend that you consult the following sources: "Measuring the Music" by John Makujina; "Can We Rock the Gospel: Rock music's impact on worship and evangelism" by John Blanchard and Dan Lucarini; and other such sources.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing the source of any "objective historical fact" that you have found regarding a particular type of music that is sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities. How far back do your historical sources go regarding this music which the CCM people took?

 

 

I've already provided some information of that sort earlier in this thread through quotes from rock musicians themselves who said that their music was sourced in or connected to the occult. It's telling that when those statements were first made, there was not a widespread outcry from believing and unbelieving musicians alike that that information was false.

If you are seriously intent upon getting more information, I would recommend that you consult the following sources: "Measuring the Music" by John Makujina; "Can We Rock the Gospel: Rock music's impact on worship and evangelism" by John Blanchard and Dan Lucarini; and other such sources.

So are you telling me that the statements of a small sampling of rock musicians regarding what they feel is the meaning of rock music become, in your mind, an "objective, historical fact" that a certain beat they pulled from previous styles is historically sourced in the occult? It sounds like you are misunderstanding the meaning of "objective, historical fact."

The rock musicians who made the statements could certainly be using the rock beat themselves in an occultic way, but does anyone truly know the first use of the beat that is currently found in rock music? Wouldn't we have to somehow know that to definitively state as "historical fact" that the rock beat itself is sourced in the occult?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

So are you telling me that the statements of a small sampling of rock musicians regarding what they feel is the meaning of rock music become, in your mind, an "objective, historical fact" that a certain beat they pulled from previous styles is historically sourced in the occult? It sounds like you are misunderstanding the meaning of "objective, historical fact."

The rock musicians who made the statements could certainly be using the rock beat themselves in an occultic way, but does anyone truly know the first use of the beat that is currently found in rock music? Wouldn't we have to somehow know that to definitively state as "historical fact" that the rock beat itself is sourced in the occult?

The statement(s) about rock music and the occult that I cited earlier was/were not statement(s) about what those musicians "feel is the meaning of rock music." They plainly said that their music employed something that had already existed in occult practices prior to the use of those things in rock music.

Similarly, the statements were not statements about how the musicians were using rock music in an "occultic" way; they stated that what those musicians were using in rock music was previously used (and continues to be used) in certain occult practices.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

6. When Satan and his demons control wicked humans to engage in idolatrous worship, they direct them not only to worship the wrong object but also to do so in ungodly ways, including by offering ungodly things to the idols.

 

Where do you find that "Scripture teaches us" the last part of your point - "including by offering ungodly things to the idols"? That sounds like an extrapolation you are trying to insist upon in order to make a point about music, but I don't see it included in Scripture. Idolaters would offer cows in sacrifice, but I don't think the Scriptures would say that "the Israelites offered godly cows, but the idolaters offered ungodly cows." One of the most horrendous acts of idolatrous sacrifice mentioned in the Bible is when idolaters offered their own children to the fire. That is an extremely wicked way to sacrifice, but such an act of sacrifice would not make children themselves inherently ungodly. Now maybe "children" is a bad example, because all unsaved people, including unsaved children, are inherently ungodly, but that ungodliness is totally unrelated to being the object of an idolatrous sacrifice. Now I can see as how the idol itself would be an ungodly thing, but since many of the things sacrificed to idols were the same things that would be sacrificed to God, I don't see as how the things themselves are ungodly. Where do you find this principle in Scripture?

I have already provided this information at least once previously in this thread. In brief, Scripture reveals that when the Antichrist (who will be energized and controlled by the devil) will cause himself to be idolatrously worshiped as god in the Temple, he will put to an end the godly sacrifices and will instead institute the offering of sacrifices that are unacceptable to God.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

The statement(s) about rock music and the occult that I cited earlier was/were not statement(s) about what those musicians "feel is the meaning of rock music." They plainly said that their music employed something that had already existed in occult practices prior to the use of those things in rock music.

So wouldn't you then need historical sources to verify whether their statements are correct in order to claim that their statements are "objective, historical facts"? I could claim that the astronauts found blue cheese on the moon., but unless my statement could be verified, no one would say that my statement is an objective historical fact.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

I have already provided this information at least once previously in this thread. In brief, Scripture reveals that when the Antichrist (who will be energized and controlled by the devil) will cause himself to be idolatrously worshiped as god in the Temple, he will put to an end the godly sacrifices and will instead institute the offering of sacrifices that are unacceptable to God.

I looked back at the post you made previously. You mentioned a number of verses which say that the regular offerings will cease and the "abomination of desolation" will be set up. This abomination of desolation seems to be the Antichrist himself from Mark 13:14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be . . " Where do you see any specific sacrifices he is offering? I can figure that offering, say, a pig upon the altar would be a desecration because there are specific verses that tell us a pig is an unacceptable sacrifice to God. But we don't know what the antichrist might be offering, if anything. Just taking over the temple and stopping the regular sacrifices would be a desecration. Offering something that the Bible specifically says can't be brought as a sacrifice is a desecration. Unless you can show that a style of music is presented in the Bible an an unacceptable sacrifice, then this example of the antichrist wouldn't really fit your point that a style of music could be an "ungodly thing" that demons get humans to sacrifice to idols.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

The statement(s) about rock music and the occult that I cited earlier was/were not statement(s) about what those musicians "feel is the meaning of rock music." They plainly said that their music employed something that had already existed in occult practices prior to the use of those things in rock music.

 

So wouldn't you then need historical sources to verify whether their statements are correct in order to claim that their statements are "objective, historical facts"? I could claim that the astronauts found blue cheese on the moon., but unless my statement could be verified, no one would say that my statement is an objective historical fact.

When those statements were made, there were no critical responses made saying that the statements were false. Opponents of conservative Christian music would have had every reason to seek to disprove their statements, but no one that I am aware has made any attempts to do so.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

I have already provided this information at least once previously in this thread. In brief, Scripture reveals that when the Antichrist (who will be energized and controlled by the devil) will cause himself to be idolatrously worshiped as god in the Temple, he will put to an end the godly sacrifices and will instead institute the offering of sacrifices that are unacceptable to God.

 

I looked back at the post you made previously. You mentioned a number of verses which say that the regular offerings will cease and the "abomination of desolation" will be set up. This abomination of desolation seems to be the Antichrist himself from Mark 13:14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be . . " Where do you see any specific sacrifices he is offering? I can figure that offering, say, a pig upon the altar would be a desecration because there are specific verses that tell us a pig is an unacceptable sacrifice to God. But we don't know what the antichrist might be offering, if anything. Just taking over the temple and stopping the regular sacrifices would be a desecration. Offering something that the Bible specifically says can't be brought as a sacrifice is a desecration. Unless you can show that a style of music is presented in the Bible an an unacceptable sacrifice, then this example of the antichrist wouldn't really fit your point that a style of music could be an "ungodly thing" that demons get humans to sacrifice to idols.

 

The point of this reasoning is to show that it disproves your previous assertions that what the devil would want most is to use the same godly sacrifices but direct them to the wrong object. When the devil has his way fully, he will put an end to the use of things that he knows are pleasing to God--he will not just redirect them to be offered to himself.

Applying that principle to music, we know that the demons did not influence the worshipers in the GCI to offer godly Israelite music to the calf. To get around this, one would have to hold that there is no such thing as ungodly music, which is something that you have already said you do not believe.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

The point of this reasoning is to show that it disproves your previous assertions that what the devil would want most is to use the same godly sacrifices but direct them to the wrong object. When the devil has his way fully, he will put an end to the use of things that he knows are pleasing to God--he will not just redirect them to be offered to himself.

 I didn't actually assert that what the devil would want most is to use the same godly sacrifices but direct them to the wrong object. The closest I came is when I said it seemed logical that, after Satan fell, he would want the same "style of praise" directed to him as had been directed to God. Are you denying that Satan would want to be praised in the same way God was praised? I never said that Satan would want the temple sacrifices of the Israelites to be directed to him. It is the temple sacrifices which the Antichrist stops. You can't use that action of the antichrist to make any definitive assertion about what music may or may not have been used at any time in praise of Satan.

Quote:
Applying that principle to music, we know that the demons did not influence the worshipers in the GCI to offer godly Israelite music to the calf.
My point has been that the Scriptures do not say what music was used, so any assertion about what type of music was used is impossible to justify. Yet you continue to make these definitive assertions without Scriptural justification. Do you have a crystal ball to see into the past and know what music was or wasn't used?

Quote:
To get around this, one would have to hold that there is no such thing as ungodly music, which is something that you have already said you do not believe.

Admitting that there is not enough information to make a definitive assertion about a particular event is NOT the same as saying there is no such thing as ungodly music. Where do you even come up with this logic? It doesn't make sense.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

When those statements were made, there were no critical responses made saying that the statements were false. Opponents of conservative Christian music would have had every reason to seek to disprove their statements, but no one that I am aware has made any attempts to do so.

Perhaps the users of CCM didn't consider the conservative music people to be "opponents" and thus didn't see the need to try disproving subjective comments for which no historical data was available either way. They probably just rolled their eyes and spent their time producing and performing songs of praise to God rather than arguing.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

When those statements were made, there were no critical responses made saying that the statements were false. Opponents of conservative Christian music would have had every reason to seek to disprove their statements, but no one that I am aware has made any attempts to do so.

 

Perhaps the users of CCM didn't consider the conservative music people to be "opponents" and thus didn't see the need to try disproving subjective comments for which no historical data was available either way. They probably just rolled their eyes and spent their time producing and performing songs of praise to God rather than arguing.

There was and is plenty of historical data to show the validity of their comments. Taking music that uses musical elements from practitioners of the occult and using it in music for divine worship is direct disobedience to divine mandates (Eph. 5:11, etc.).

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Quote:

Applying that principle to music, we know that the demons did not influence the worshipers in the GCI to offer godly Israelite music to the calf.

My point has been that the Scriptures do not say what music was used, so any assertion about what type of music was used is impossible to justify. Yet you continue to make these definitive assertions without Scriptural justification. Do you have a crystal ball to see into the past and know what music was or wasn't used?

The Scriptures do not have to say what music was used for us to know that it was not godly Israelite music. The character and objectives of demons and what God has revealed about what demons do when they direct humans in ungodly worship show us that the demons on that occasion did not direct the idolaters to use godly music in their idolatrous worship.

Furthermore, what God has revealed about the music and other activities of the people on that occasion after they came under demonic influence provides more than sufficient information to show that everything those people did on that occasion after they came under demonic influence was ungodly to the core.

Bert Perry's picture

Rajesh is incorrect that others have not pointed out the inapplicability of comments like those of Simmons.  For starters, I've pointed out, repeatedly, that KISS is (or was, they're basically done) basically a fringe group that has played for decades to basically the same half million fans in the same venues.  It's been a good schtick for him--he's gotten rich and has had sex with a lot of beautiful women who otherwise wouldn't have given him the time of day--but it's silly, and a horrendous hasty generalization along with guilt by association, to pretend that comments like his apply to an entire genre.  As Aristotle would have told you, "some" is not "all", and any argument that misses that little fact is dead from the get-go.

Moreover, you have the question of whether the alleged demon possession of rock & roll stars looks at all like demon possession in the Bible.  The answer; not by a long shot.  When demons possess people in the Bible, they don't get super-rich, create music loved by millions, and have a harem of beauties at their disposal.  Rather, they go insane, lose everything they have, go around naked or in rags, and injure themselves and others.  See Saul, Nebuchadnezzar, those healed by Christ, and the like.

What we have with many rock & roll stars is that they, to varying degrees, succumb to the temptations of the flesh.  Perhaps a few do indeed become demon possessed, but again, the trials of a few do not impugn a genre created by many. What Simmons' comments are, really, is marketing so he can keep the money he needs to keep Shannon Tweed happy.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Pages