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!

36022 reads
RajeshG's picture

In addition to the testimonies that I have previously provided in this thread (which were not comments by Gene Simmons), believers seeking credible testimonies against rock music's occult character should consult the numerous additional credible testimonies against its occult character that are provided in the 28-page chapter, "Strange Fire," in Can We Rock the Gospel: Rock music's impact on worship and evangelism by John Blanchard and Dan Lucarini.

Other sources beyond that chapter also exist and firmly establish that credible testimonies against the occult character of rock music abound and support believers' complete and permanent rejection of all such music. 

 

Bert Perry's picture

Comments by a small subset of rock & roll artists, none of whom appear to have suffered the fates of those actually afflicted by demons in the Scriptures, tell us precisely nothing about how the vast majority of musicians in the genre operate.  Come on, Rajesh, if you're going to argue "demonic influence", you can't say "some equals all" or "the experience of some impugns the work of all".  It's basic Aristotelian logic and the principle that doing so is called "hasty generalization."   And in the same way, if you're going to argue "demonic influence", then the experience of those so influenced ought to parallel what those so influenced in the Scripture experienced--Saul, Job, Nebuchadnezzar, etc..

Job is particularly important because he clearly not possessed per se, but when demons/Satan are allowed to attack him, they make his life a living Hell.  We might infer from the Scriptures that where demons are allowed to attack, they are allowed to cause harm, but not good--and that argues strongly against the idea that rock & roll suffers uniformly from demonic influence.  If it were so, you'd expect them, again, to be in rags, scratching their boils with a rock, etc..

It's time to let your "dance track length guilt by association fallacy" go, Rajesh.  Or really, long past time.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

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.).

So, which "musical element" is a "work of darkness"? I know that occult practices would be a work of darkness. Using tea leaves, for example, to read the future is an occult practice, but we don't consider tea leaves themselves to be a "work of darkness" simply because they are used by practitioners of the occult. So how in the world do you get the idea that some "musical element" becomes a work of darkness?

You've made a declarative assertion here. Are you going to support it, or just run from the conversation?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

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.).

 

So, which "musical element" is a "work of darkness"? I know that occult practices would be a work of darkness. Using tea leaves, for example, to read the future is an occult practice, but we don't consider tea leaves themselves to be a "work of darkness" simply because they are used by practitioners of the occult. So how in the world do you get the idea that some "musical element" becomes a work of darkness?

 

You've made a declarative assertion here. Are you going to support it, or just run from the conversation?

I am not going to rehash ground that I have already covered in this thread. You are welcome to go back in this thread and find the testimonies cited and refresh yourself with that knowledge.

Believers who choose to follow divine revelation and reject completely music that is connected to the occult do not have any obligations to discuss further any specifics or answer any further specific questions about how, why, etc. such music should be rejected.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

So, which "musical element" is a "work of darkness"? I know that occult practices would be a work of darkness. Using tea leaves, for example, to read the future is an occult practice, but we don't consider tea leaves themselves to be a "work of darkness" simply because they are used by practitioners of the occult. So how in the world do you get the idea that some "musical element" becomes a work of darkness?

 

You've made a declarative assertion here. Are you going to support it, or just run from the conversation?

 

I am not going to rehash ground that I have already covered in this thread. You are welcome to go back in this thread and find the testimonies cited and refresh yourself with that knowledge.

Believers who choose to follow divine revelation and reject completely music that is connected to the occult do not have any obligations to discuss further any specifics or answer any further specific questions about how, why, etc. such music should be rejected.

Yeah, I figured you'd run from the conversation. Going back through the thread doesn't help, since you've never really provided the information needed to support your assertions. There simply is no biblical support for the idea that a "musical element" is a "work of darkness" spoken of in Eph 5:11.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

So, which "musical element" is a "work of darkness"? I know that occult practices would be a work of darkness. Using tea leaves, for example, to read the future is an occult practice, but we don't consider tea leaves themselves to be a "work of darkness" simply because they are used by practitioners of the occult. So how in the world do you get the idea that some "musical element" becomes a work of darkness?

 

You've made a declarative assertion here. Are you going to support it, or just run from the conversation?

 

I am not going to rehash ground that I have already covered in this thread. You are welcome to go back in this thread and find the testimonies cited and refresh yourself with that knowledge.

Believers who choose to follow divine revelation and reject completely music that is connected to the occult do not have any obligations to discuss further any specifics or answer any further specific questions about how, why, etc. such music should be rejected.

 

Yeah, I figured you'd run from the conversation. Going back through the thread doesn't help, since you've never really provided the information needed to support your assertions. There simply is no biblical support for the idea that a "musical element" is a "work of darkness" spoken of in Eph 5:11.

Believers who have carefully researched and examined the numerous testimonies about the occult character of rock music have abundant evidence for rejecting it in its totality as a work of darkness (Eph. 5:11) without having to have specific biblical statements that specifically talk about rock music in specific terms of musical elements.

The Bible never teaches that musicology is the divinely declared standard for knowing what music is acceptable to God and what music is not. Providing biblical statements about unacceptable musical elements is not necessary for knowing what music believers are to reject.

In His perfect wisdom, God has declared that rejecting the works of darkness does not require extensive investigation and analysis of those works; in fact, God forbids such investigation and analysis. With multiple witnesses about the occult character of rock music, careful believers have more than sufficient evidence (2 Cor. 13:1; etc.) to reject it completely and permanently.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Believers who have carefully researched and examined the numerous testimonies about the occult character of rock music have abundant evidence for rejecting it in its totality as a work of darkness (Eph. 5:11) without having to have specific biblical statements that specifically talk about rock music in specific terms of musical elements.

The Bible never teaches that musicology is the divinely declared standard for knowing what music is acceptable to God and what music is not. Providing biblical statements about unacceptable musical elements is not necessary for knowing what music believers are to reject.

In His perfect wisdom, God has declared that rejecting the works of darkness does not require extensive investigation and analysis of those works; in fact, God forbids such investigation and analysis. With multiple witnesses about the occult character of rock music, careful believers have more than sufficient evidence (2 Cor. 13:1; etc.) to reject it completely and permanently.

Your post here is a prime example of you playing with semantics to make a point that can't actually be applied to CCM in any logical way. You say that rock music "in it's totality" is a work of darkness. What does that even mean? The totality of rock music would include the notes and the harmonies and the key signatures and the rhythms and the bridges and the lyrics and even the particular uses in various situations. If you think "totality" means something different, then please explain what totality means. How would rejecting the "totality" of rock music help me make a decision about church music. I know that what you mean is that a rock beat should be rejected, but since you have no biblical support for saying that a particular beat is a "work of darkness," you use the glib, semantically-squishy phrase "in it's totality" to tap dance around having to support your position. Of course you don't think an "extensive investigation and analysis" is necessary, since such investigation would reveal that NO biblical evidence exists to condemn a particular beat. You're just playing with words and you can expect to be called out every time you do so.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Believers who have carefully researched and examined the numerous testimonies about the occult character of rock music have abundant evidence for rejecting it in its totality as a work of darkness (Eph. 5:11) without having to have specific biblical statements that specifically talk about rock music in specific terms of musical elements.

The Bible never teaches that musicology is the divinely declared standard for knowing what music is acceptable to God and what music is not. Providing biblical statements about unacceptable musical elements is not necessary for knowing what music believers are to reject.

In His perfect wisdom, God has declared that rejecting the works of darkness does not require extensive investigation and analysis of those works; in fact, God forbids such investigation and analysis. With multiple witnesses about the occult character of rock music, careful believers have more than sufficient evidence (2 Cor. 13:1; etc.) to reject it completely and permanently.

 

Your post here is a prime example of you playing with semantics to make a point that can't actually be applied to CCM in any logical way. You say that rock music "in it's totality" is a work of darkness. What does that even mean? The totality of rock music would include the notes and the harmonies and the key signatures and the rhythms and the bridges and the lyrics and even the particular uses in various situations. If you think "totality" means something different, then please explain what totality means. How would rejecting the "totality" of rock music help me make a decision about church music. I know that what you mean is that a rock beat should be rejected, but since you have no biblical support for saying that a particular beat is a "work of darkness," you use the glib, semantically-squishy phrase "in it's totality" to tap dance around having to support your position. Of course you don't think an "extensive investigation and analysis" is necessary, since such investigation would reveal that NO biblical evidence exists to condemn a particular beat. You're just playing with words and you can expect to be called out every time you do so.

I do not need any biblical support for saying that a particular beat is a work of darkness. Rock musicians themselves have testified that they have taken such elements from practitioners of the occult.

In spite of such testimonies, if you want to claim that those elements are not ungodly even though they were taken from practitioners of the occult, you have the burden of proving that they are not ungodly.

You do not have any Bible to support saying that God accepts the use of all types of beats in music, especially not in worship music. When, therefore, rock musicians testify that they have taken that element from music of the occult, you do not have any biblical basis for asserting that element is fit for any Christian use.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

I do not need any biblical support for saying that a particular beat is a work of darkness. Rock musicians themselves have testified that they have taken such elements from practitioners of the occult.

In spite of such testimonies, if you want to claim that those elements are not ungodly even though they were taken from practitioners of the occult, you have the burden of proving that they are not ungodly.

Why don't you need biblical support? Do unsaved rock musicians have more authority than the Bible, in that we take their direction rather than the Bible when making spiritual decisions? The Bible declares a lot of activities as being instigated by the devil, and therefore a work of darkness Lying, for example, is directly condemned by God and even has a direct satanic connection in that the devil is the father of lies.

If I was to claim that jogging is a work of darkness, wouldn't you expect me to have biblical support to show that it is? Would testimonies from joggers saying that some of them jog for Satan be enough to condemn all jogging as a work of darkness? I wouldn't think so, but according to your logic, it would. Here's another example with a more direct connection. Sewing. Do you believe the occult connection makes sewing of limits for believers? After all, needles are used in occult voodoo doll ceremonies where practitioners of the occult jab needles into dolls to injure people. Needles are therefore an element taken from the occult, and therefore, according to your logic, they would be ungodly and should not be used by believers in any activity, such as sewing. I mentioned a few other examples back in May in this thread. I mentioned tea leaves used in fortune telling; I mentioned water, fruit, and flowers that are offered in Hindu worship; and I mentioned the occult connections of playing cards. You dismissed those examples at that time by saying "None of these things that you talk about are talked about in the Bible as being produced by demons or by humans influenced by demons." And you even italicized "in the Bible."  Yet NOW you claim the Bible isn't needed to support your view. After all, a particular beat isn't shown in the Bible to be a work of darkness. It honestly seems like you pick and choose which "demonic connections" you oppose and which you don't oppose, without any true biblical support to go by. And then you tell me you "do not need any biblical support." It absolutely boggles me.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

I do not need any biblical support for saying that a particular beat is a work of darkness. Rock musicians themselves have testified that they have taken such elements from practitioners of the occult.

In spite of such testimonies, if you want to claim that those elements are not ungodly even though they were taken from practitioners of the occult, you have the burden of proving that they are not ungodly.

Why don't you need biblical support? Do unsaved rock musicians have more authority than the Bible, in that we take their direction rather than the Bible when making spiritual decisions? The Bible declares a lot of activities as being instigated by the devil, and therefore a work of darkness Lying, for example, is directly condemned by God and even has a direct satanic connection in that the devil is the father of lies.

 

If I was to claim that jogging is a work of darkness, wouldn't you expect me to have biblical support to show that it is? Would testimonies from joggers saying that some of them jog for Satan be enough to condemn all jogging as a work of darkness? I wouldn't think so, but according to your logic, it would. Here's another example with a more direct connection. Sewing. Do you believe the occult connection makes sewing of limits for believers? After all, needles are used in occult voodoo doll ceremonies where practitioners of the occult jab needles into dolls to injure people. Needles are therefore an element taken from the occult, and therefore, according to your logic, they would be ungodly and should not be used by believers in any activity, such as sewing. I mentioned a few other examples back in May in this thread. I mentioned tea leaves used in fortune telling; I mentioned water, fruit, and flowers that are offered in Hindu worship; and I mentioned the occult connections of playing cards. You dismissed those examples at that time by saying "None of these things that you talk about are talked about in the Bible as being produced by demons or by humans influenced by demons." And you even italicized "in the Bible."  Yet NOW you claim the Bible isn't needed to support your view. After all, a particular beat isn't shown in the Bible to be a work of darkness. It honestly seems like you pick and choose which "demonic connections" you oppose and which you don't oppose, without any true biblical support to go by. And then you tell me you "do not need any biblical support." It absolutely boggles me.

Are you kidding me? It's really hard for me to fathom how it is possible that you are actually being serious in making these comments. Comparing music to water, tea leaves, fruit, flowers, needles, and jogging?

Do you really not understand from a biblical standpoint how music is different from all the rest of these things?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Are you kidding me? It's really hard for me to fathom how it is possible that you are actually being serious in making these comments. Comparing music to water, tea leaves, fruit, flowers, needles, and jogging?

Do you really not understand from a biblical standpoint how music is different from all the rest of these things?

Of course I'm not kidding you. Accusing me of "kidding you" is just another way to deflect from providing biblical support for your position.. Our conversation had already narrowed to the topic of a particular beat, or musical pattern, that is used by a particular group of people. Whether we are talking about water, tea leaves, fruit, flowers, needles, or a particular musical pattern, do you have any biblical support to show that the use of any of them is condemned in Scripture just because they may also have been used at some point by a practitioner of the occult? Yes, there are differences between water and needles. Yes, there are differences between tea leaves and a musical pattern, What I am asking is whether you are consistent in the use of your principle, which you have made clear, that "elements" are ungodly if they have been taken from practitioners of the occult. Within that context, all of those things are "elements' that are used by practitioners of the occult, whether or not there may be "differences" of some kind between them.

It doesn't look like you are willing to be consistent, and that is okay if you are just talking about your own personal standards regarding a matter. If, however, you are presenting a principle as "something taught in the Bible," then such a principle should be able to be consistently applied, or it is useless in regards to application.

 

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Are you kidding me? It's really hard for me to fathom how it is possible that you are actually being serious in making these comments. Comparing music to water, tea leaves, fruit, flowers, needles, and jogging?

Do you really not understand from a biblical standpoint how music is different from all the rest of these things?

 

Of course I'm not kidding you. Accusing me of "kidding you" is just another way to deflect from providing biblical support for your position.. Our conversation had already narrowed to the topic of a particular beat, or musical pattern, that is used by a particular group of people. Whether we are talking about water, tea leaves, fruit, flowers, needles, or a particular musical pattern, do you have any biblical support to show that the use of any of them is condemned in Scripture just because they may also have been used at some point by a practitioner of the occult? Yes, there are differences between water and needles. Yes, there are differences between tea leaves and a musical pattern, What I am asking is whether you are consistent in the use of your principle, which you have made clear, that "elements" are ungodly if they have been taken from practitioners of the occult. Within that context, all of those things are "elements' that are used by practitioners of the occult, whether or not there may be "differences" of some kind between them.

 

It doesn't look like you are willing to be consistent, and that is okay if you are just talking about your own personal standards regarding a matter. If, however, you are presenting a principle as "something taught in the Bible," then such a principle should be able to be consistently applied, or it is useless in regards to application.

 

You tellingly chose to leave out my last paragraph that reads as follows:

"You do not have any Bible to support saying that God accepts the use of all types of beats in music, especially not in worship music. When, therefore, rock musicians testify that they have taken that element from music of the occult, you do not have any biblical basis for asserting that element is fit for any Christian use."

My point has always been about taking things from practitioners of the occult and using them in worship. Making an issue out of water, tea leaves, fruits, flowers, needles, and jogging is a ridiculous assertion because God has not authorized any use of those things in our divine worship (except for water baptism, which obviously uses water). Music is different from all of those things, and you know it.

Furthermore, God created water, tea leaves, fruits, and flowers before there were any humans. Regardless of any misuse of those things by evil people, those things, therefore, do not become ungodly by such use and therefore unfit for any Christian use.

Moreover, human beings have been sewing long before the practitioners of the occult of our day came along and there is zero evidence that practitioners of the occult invented needles and everybody else borrowed them from them. Any misuse of needles by practitioners of the occult, therefore, is totally irrelevant for this discussion.

Your mentioning of jogging in this context is so outrageous that it hardly even merits comment. Nonetheless, so that you will not persist in talking about it, you are welcome to prove that practitioners of the occult created jogging and then everyone else borrowed it from them. Then you are welcome to show biblically how jogging is an issue concerning our worship.

Most importantly, you have zero Bible to support any assertion that all beats are acceptable to God for any use, especially for worship. Taking any music that uses such an element that is from practitioners of the occult and using it for Christian anything, therefore, has zero biblical basis to support it and explicit divine commands that apply to prohibit borrowing things from such wicked people and using it in Christian anything, especially in worship music (Eph. 5:11, etc).

Ron Bean's picture

Rajesh says:My point has always been about taking things from practitioners of the occult and using them in worship.

Could someone give me a modern day example of actual worship music that has taken things from practitioners of the occult? I'm desiring some specific examples, preferably reasonably popular and something I may have heard of. Thank you very much.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

You tellingly chose to leave out my last paragraph that reads as follows:

"You do not have any Bible to support saying that God accepts the use of all types of beats in music, especially not in worship music. When, therefore, rock musicians testify that they have taken that element from music of the occult, you do not have any biblical basis for asserting that element is fit for any Christian use."

My point has always been about taking things from practitioners of the occult and using them in worship. Making an issue out of water, tea leaves, fruits, flowers, needles, and jogging is a ridiculous assertion because God has not authorized any use of those things in our divine worship (except for water baptism, which obviously uses water). Music is different from all of those things, and you know it.

Adding the specification of "using them in worship" is just another deflection from having to provide biblical support for your position.  You don't hold the position that rock music is unacceptable only when it is used in worship. Your position is that rock music is not "fit for any Christian use." Isn't that your position? So what point is there in making the clarification that your position is only about using things in worship? Your applications go further than worship. You've specifically stated earlier that Christians should not use rock music at all. Besides, the Hindus offer water, fruits, and flowers in their worship, so those examples do meet the criteria you noted. If someone is worshipping a false god with water, fruit, and flowers, aren't they worshipping a demon? Why would you defend those items, which are used by occult practitioners, as being fit for Christian use, but oppose a specific musical pattern. It's patently inconsistent. We have no historical reference regarding when specific musical patterns were originated or created.  Without that knowledge, one simply can't make claims about their origin being occultic. You are trying to proclaim some "difference" between the musical pattern and those other worship elements, but you haven't provided any biblical support that such a difference exists.

Quote:
Most importantly, you have zero Bible to support any assertion that all beats are acceptable to God for any use, especially for worship.
I don't have to support that assertion because I've never made it. You keep pretending I'm making this assertion in order to deflect from having to provide biblical support for your own assertions.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Besides, the Hindus offer water, fruits, and flowers in their worship, so those examples do meet the criteria you noted. If someone is worshipping a false god with water, fruit, and flowers, aren't they worshipping a demon? Why would you defend those items, which are used by occult practitioners, as being fit for Christian use, but oppose a specific musical pattern. It's patently inconsistent.

Those items have been created by God. We know that water, fruit, and flowers are good things because God created them. Regardless of anything that wicked humans might do with things that God has actually created, those things themselves do not thereby become ungodly things in and of themselves.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Besides, the Hindus offer water, fruits, and flowers in their worship, so those examples do meet the criteria you noted. If someone is worshipping a false god with water, fruit, and flowers, aren't they worshipping a demon? Why would you defend those items, which are used by occult practitioners, as being fit for Christian use, but oppose a specific musical pattern. It's patently inconsistent.

 

 

Those items have been created by God. We know that water, fruit, and flowers are good things because God created them. Regardless of anything that wicked humans might do with things that God has actually created, those things themselves do not thereby become ungodly things in and of themselves.

And we have no indication from Scripture regarding which musical patterns may or may not have been created by God or by angels before the fall. Some may not have been created before the fall, and those ones may very well be ungodly, but those could also be godly. Without specific biblical knowledge of which patterns are godly or ungodly, we can't make present day judgments that a particular pattern has or has not been originally created in the same way that water. fruit, and flowers were. Regardless of how a wicked human may use a musical pattern, that use does not make the pattern become ungodly in and of itself.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Besides, the Hindus offer water, fruits, and flowers in their worship, so those examples do meet the criteria you noted. If someone is worshipping a false god with water, fruit, and flowers, aren't they worshipping a demon? Why would you defend those items, which are used by occult practitioners, as being fit for Christian use, but oppose a specific musical pattern. It's patently inconsistent.

 

 

Those items have been created by God. We know that water, fruit, and flowers are good things because God created them. Regardless of anything that wicked humans might do with things that God has actually created, those things themselves do not thereby become ungodly things in and of themselves.

 

And we have no indication from Scripture regarding which musical patterns may or may not have been created by God or by angels before the fall. Some may not have been created before the fall, and those ones may very well be ungodly, but those could also be godly. Without specific biblical knowledge of which patterns are godly or ungodly, we can't make present day judgments that a particular pattern has or has not been originally created in the same way that water. fruit, and flowers were. Regardless of how a wicked human may use a musical pattern, that use does not make the pattern become ungodly in and of itself.

No, this understanding is not valid. The Bible does not provide any evidence that good angels have ever provided humans with information about musical patterns. Nor is there any evidence that good angels have ever entered or possessed people the way demons do.

Furthermore, there is zero biblical evidence for saying that evil humans are using musical patterns created by God. The Bible never speaks of God's giving any evil humans any musical patterns, etc.

Moreover, several thousand years after the Fall, Paul infallibly declares that reprobate idolaters are inventors of evil. You do not have any basis for saying that does not apply to musical patterns. Because we know that idolaters use music in their idolatrous worship, this revelation supports our holding that they are inventors of evil musical patterns that they use in their idolatrous worship.

We also have explicit biblical evidence of divine rejection of the sound of the instrumental music of the king of Babylon, who was an idolater and whose nation of all nations in Scripture is emphasized as having the strongest occult character of any nation.

Based on all these considerations, when wicked humans in our day have testified abundantly that their music is music of the occult and is demonic music and that they have created their music for the purpose of promoting wickedness, as rock musicians have testified, you do not have any biblical basis for saying that what they say is wrong because actually God made their music.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

And we have no indication from Scripture regarding which musical patterns may or may not have been created by God or by angels before the fall. Some may not have been created before the fall, and those ones may very well be ungodly, but those could also be godly. Without specific biblical knowledge of which patterns are godly or ungodly, we can't make present day judgments that a particular pattern has or has not been originally created in the same way that water. fruit, and flowers were. Regardless of how a wicked human may use a musical pattern, that use does not make the pattern become ungodly in and of itself.

 

No, this understanding is not valid. The Bible does not provide any evidence that good angels have ever provided humans with information about musical patterns. Nor is there any evidence that good angels have ever entered or possessed people the way demons do.

Are you seriously directing a "the Bible does not provide any evidence" toward me? Do you honestly not see how that statement applies to your position as well? You are just repeating my basic point, and then telling me my understanding is not valid. I hate to sound condescending, but your statement just makes me roll my eyes. I said "And we have no indication from Scripture regarding which musical patterns may or may not have been created by God or by angels before the fall." I was saying there is no evidence one way or the other about which patterns are God's original creation and which ones are man's. How is that understanding not valid, especially when you just repeat the same idea back to me ?

And I have no idea why you are bringing possession back into the conversation. Are you now asserting that the only way a spirit being can influence a person musically is through possession? That conflicts with what you've said earlier in the thread, so you sound like you're quite confused. What exactly is your point about possession?

Quote:
Furthermore, there is zero biblical evidence for saying that evil humans are using musical patterns created by God. The Bible never speaks of God's giving any evil humans any musical patterns, etc.
And there is zero evidence that they aren't using musical patterns created by God. We simply don't know the ultimate origin of any musical pattern. Have you even considered God's creation of birds? God gave birds the ability to voice complex songs and repetitious patterns. Even the rat-a-tat-tat  drumming of a woodpecker is a nature sound put in place by God. The world was full of God-given natural sounds and musical patterns before man was even created. If you are saying it is impossible for evil humans to ever imitate sounds that they hear in nature, then you have zero biblical evidence to make that claim. We simply can't know one way or the other which patterns have come from God and which haven't.

Quote:
Moreover, several thousand years after the Fall, Paul infallibly declares that reprobate idolaters are inventors of evil. You do not have any basis for saying that does not apply to musical patterns. Because we know that idolaters use music in their idolatrous worship, this revelation supports our holding that they are inventors of evil musical patterns that they use in their idolatrous worship.
Here you go, using that "inventors of evil" phrase again. We were discussing this phrase a little over a week ago, and you refused to answer some questions I had about it. Instead of answering, you just quoted my post and rehashed a bunch of your declarative assertions again. I looked up Romans 1:30 in the NIV. it says "slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;" So how in the world is a musical pattern a "way of doing evil"? Idolaters do evil when they slander, when they hate God, when they are arrogant, and when they disobey parents. They are also doing evil when the invent a new way of doing evil. But how does this apply to a musical pattern? You have never yet shown how a musical pattern is a new way of doing evil. I'm sure you going to tell me I have to show how it's not a way of doing evil, but that's just silly. You are the one making the declarative assertion that a musical pattern would be included in a list of ways of doing evil, so you would have to show how it fits in a list of ways of doing evil. The fact that you have specifically refused to do so is quite telling.

Quote:
We also have explicit biblical evidence of divine rejection of the sound of the instrumental music of the king of Babylon, who was an idolater and whose nation of all nations in Scripture is emphasized as having the strongest occult character of any nation.
But since the biblical evidence does not include the sound of any musical pattern, then our present day application of the passage limited. How would we know what present day patterns are Babylonian patterns? How would we know the ultimate origin of any particular musical patterns within the Babylonian songs? 

Quote:
Based on all these considerations, when wicked humans in our day have testified abundantly that their music is music of the occult and is demonic music and that they have created their music for the purpose of promoting wickedness, as rock musicians have testified, you do not have any biblical basis for saying that what they say is wrong because actually God made their music.
I wouldn't say they are wrong when they claim their music is designed to promote wickedness. Wicked people can use all sorts of things, good and bad, in the promotion of wickedness. The composite package of their music is absolutely wicked, and I have never said, in any thread, that God has made the composite package of any wicked composer's music. What I am questioning is the assertion that a specific musical pattern should be characterized as evil due to it's "demonic origin" when the historical record of the origin any any particular pattern in unavailable to humans. God hasn't given us that revelation. God certainly didn't bypass the inspired writers of Scripture to give that revelation to rock musicians.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Quote:
We also have explicit biblical evidence of divine rejection of the sound of the instrumental music of the king of Babylon, who was an idolater and whose nation of all nations in Scripture is emphasized as having the strongest occult character of any nation.

But since the biblical evidence does not include the sound of any musical pattern, then our present day application of the passage limited. How would we know what present day patterns are Babylonian patterns? How would we know the ultimate origin of any particular musical patterns within the Babylonian songs? 

No, because the Bible is sufficient, this explicit revelation about the music of an idolater in the nation that is the most strongly tied to the occult in Scripture tells us that God rejects the music of idolaters who are involved in the occult. Unless you provide explicit Bible evidence to the contrary that shows that God has ever accepted or approved of any music created by or used by idolaters or practitioners of the occult, this passage (and others such as Deut. 12:30-31) establishes that the biblical position is that God rejects their music and wants us to reject it categorically.

It is illegitimate to suggest or imply that somehow by some unknown means God approves of some of their music even though the Bible does not ever say that He does. The Bible is the standard, and had God wanted us to believe that their music is acceptable to Him even though they are wicked people involved in wicked practices, He would have told us so. He has not done so anywhere in the Bible, which proves that their music is not acceptable to Him.

The Bible standard is that we must examine all things carefully and hold fast to those things which are good:  1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Unless you can prove from the Bible that the music of idolaters or of practitioners of the occult is acceptable to God and therefore good in His sight, it is to be rejected categorically.

Do you have any Bible evidence that shows that God has ever accepted or approved of music of idolaters or practitioners of the occult? Without such evidence, you have no legitimate basis to suggest or assert that their music is or might be good music that is acceptable to God.

Pages