On Bible Interpretation, Evidence, and Music
Image
2 Timothy 3:16 reveals that all of Scripture is God-inspired and instructive. Taken with Romans 15:4, similar verses, and examples of NT use of OT passages, some have concluded that even incidental narrative details are potential sources of doctrine.
Since OT narrative details reference everything from clothing to cooking, tools, weapons, vehicles (carts, chariots), and so much more, there are, of course, references to music. There are even references to specific instruments, moods, and uses of music.
I want to offer a few thoughts here for two audiences. The first is those who claim the hermeneutic (interpretive approach) that takes every narrative detail as a potential source of doctrine. The second audience is those who have participated in conversations, debates, or quarrels on the topic of “what the Bible teaches about music” and sensed that there was some kind of disconnect regarding how to use Scripture to address features of present-day culture.
Maybe something here can help a few understand each other a little bit better on these topics and more accurately identify points of agreement and disagreement.
Narrative and Evidence
I’ve written about proper use of narrative before, with a focus on why we should avoid “spiritualizing” elements of narrative—whether OT or NT. Many of the same problems afflict efforts to extract doctrine from narrative details.
Here, we’ll focus on the role of evidence in Bible interpretation, especially narrative.
It should be a given that since we’re talking about God’s Word, and teaching we are going to claim is “biblical,” any interpretation we take of any passage of Scripture—narrative or not—needs to be justified by evidence and reasoning. Saying “God meant this when He said that” is a weighty claim! It needs to be justified.
In other words, whenever we claim, “This information in this text has this meaning for us,” we should be expected to prove it. The “proof” may be informal, as it usually is in preaching. Still, we should expect listeners to want reasons. Our beliefs and assertions should be warranted, and we should help others see why they are warranted.
Narrative is no exception to this duty—any more than poetry, prophecy, or epistles.
Classifying Evidence
Some years ago, I wrote about casting lots as a thought experiment on handling biblical evidence. A lot of readers wanted to debate the validity of casting lots—but my intent was to stir curiosity: Why don’t churches or individual believers generally make decisions that way today?
There’s a reason we don’t. It has to do with evidence.
I’m going to talk about three qualities of evidence, two types of evidence, then five sub-types.
First, three qualities:
- Consistent with
- Supportive
- Conclusive
Say a building burned down, and we discover that Wolfgang was at the location when the fire started. His presence there is consistent with the claim that he started the fire, but it doesn’t support that conclusion at all. This is more obvious if lots of other people were there, too.
But suppose we also learn that Wolfgang had publicly said he wished that building would burn. He also bought lots of flammable liquids earlier that day. That still doesn’t prove he did it, but it is supportive. Though inconclusive, it is evidential for the claim that Wolfgang started the fire.
Now suppose Wolfgang was the only person there at the right time to have started the fire. Suppose the building was recently inspected and found to have no faulty wiring. There were no electrical storms that day, either.
We are now probably “beyond reasonable doubt” about Wolfgang’s guilt. The evidence is conclusive in the sense that it warrants a high-confidence conclusion.
On to the two types:
- Internal evidence
- External evidence
In reference to the Bible, internal evidence is anything within the 66 books of the Bible. External evidence is everything from human experience, human nature, and the whole created world outside the Bible.
Simple enough. On to the five sub-types. These are types of internal evidence. We could choose almost any topic, then classify every (or nearly every) biblical reference to it as one of these types. I’ll use music for this example:
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in all contexts.
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in a particular setting.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality, and evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality but no evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, but no contextual indications of quality or exemplary intent.
What do I mean by “exemplary intent”? Sometimes we read that person A did B, and the context encourages us to believe we’re seeing an example of good or bad conduct. For example, we read that Daniel prayed “as he had done previously” (Dan 6:10). The context encourages us to see Daniel’s choices as both good (“contextual indications of quality”) and something to imitate in an appropriate way (“exemplary intent”).
Evidence and Certainty
Why bother to classify evidence? Because classifying the information (evidence/potential evidence) guides us in evaluating how well it works as justification for a claim. In turn, that shapes how certain we can be that our understanding is correct and how certain we can encourage others to be.
Looking at the five types of internal evidence above, the evidential weight and certainty decrease as we get further down the list. By the time we get to type 5, we may not have evidence at all—in reference to our topic or claim. Depending on the size of the claim, there might be information that is consistent with a claim, but not really anything supportive, much less conclusive.
As we move up the list of types, relevance to the topic becomes far more direct, and interpretive possibilities are greatly reduced. Certainty increases because there are fewer options.
There is no Bible verse that tells us this. It’s a function of what is there in the text vs. what is not there. We know there is a difference between an apostle saying, “Do this for this reason” and an individual in an OT history doing something, with no explanation of why it’s in the text. The relationship of these realities to appropriate levels of certainty follows out of necessity.
How Narrative Is Special
Speaking of differences between one genre of writing and another in Scripture, let’s pause to briefly note a few things about narrative.
- Humans pretty much universally recognize narrative. They may not be able to explain what sets it apart from other kinds of writing, but they know it when they read or hear it.
- The characteristics of narrative that enable us to recognize it are not revealed in Scripture. There is no verse that says “this is the definition of narrative.” We just know.
- Those characteristics include the fact that many details in narratives are only there to support the story. They are not intended to convey anything to us outside of that context.
- There is no Bible verse that tells us narrative works this way. We just know. It’s built into the definition.
What does this mean when it comes to evidence and justifying our claim that a passage reveals a truth or helps build a doctrine?
It means that narrative detail has a different burden-of-proof level by default. Because the story-supportive role of narrative detail is inherent in the nature of narrative, our starting assumption with these details is normally that they are there to give us information about the events and characters, not to provide other kinds of information.
Can a narrative detail have a secondary purpose of revealing to us the nature of, say, hats and other clothing, carts and other vehicles, stew and other dishes, axes and other tools, lyres and other musical instruments? Probably sometimes. As with any other interpretive claim, the burden of proof lies on the interpreter to justify it. In the case of narrative, though, the interpreter has a lower-certainty starting point, and a longer journey to arrive at a warranted belief.
The Profitability of All Scripture
2 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 15:4 do indeed assure us that all of Scripture is important. “Verbal, plenary inspiration” describes our conviction that every original word of the Bible is fully and equally from God. So we don’t look at any words and dismiss them as unimportant. What we do is ask how do these words work together in their context to provide us with “teaching… reproof.. correction… and training in righteousness.”
Narrative details are important. They’re so important that we’re obligated to stay out of the way and let them do their job.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 4932 views
I believe that there are instrumental musical "genres" or "styles" of the occult that are categorically, forever off-limits to God's people.
My position is based on the following truths:
- Supernatural evil exists--it is real.
- God forbids humans from having anything to do with supernatural evil.
- Evil humans have engaged in occult musical activities intended to elicit interaction with supernatural evil. Through such activities, they have had fully authentic interactions with supernatural evil.
- All such occult musical activities and all their distinctively occult musical practices and products ("genres," "styles," etc.) are categorically, forever off-limits to God's people.
All four points are fine, although #3 rates as a "probably" with me, as I know of no clear examples of this. I'll take it as a given however, because someone somewhere has probably done this.
Point #5 should be: X musical style is explicitly and clearly the product of occult musical practices and therefore off limits.
That is where the burden of proof lies. Although I don't like most modern genres, I don't know how you prove they are the fruit of occultism.
In the end, I think this is a fruitless exercise, because you can't conclusively prove point 5.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I see problems with all but #1.
#2 What does “anything to do” mean? Where is that written? Does that really fit the ‘meat offered to idols’ (equated with demons to some extent in the context) passages?
Jesus ate with publicans and sinners. Are we told “only non-occultic” publicans and sinners? What about 1 Cor. 5:9-12?
#3 What is an “evil human”? Are there any not evil humans? Do we mean “humans who are sinners”? That would be everyone including all of us. Are you suggesting a special class of humans? What defines the distinction between them and everyone else?
Both #2 and #3 What is “supernatural evil”? Is there natural evil? How are they different? Are we called to have a more relaxed attitude toward ‘natural’ evil but a more strict attitude toward ‘supernatural’ evil? Why?
#4 What is a “distinctively occult musical practice”? Would it be specific chords? Melodies? Rhythms? Instruments? How are they “distinctive”?
To sum up, there are a lot of both theological and practical problems with approaching the topic that way.
It might be worth doing to study the passages that specifically warn about practices/persons we’re calling “occult” and dig into what is actually commanded (in context) and why, to the extent we can get at that.
In application, we’ve always got to figure out how we are like and unlike the original audience and how our situation is like and unlike theirs. The truths have to be understood rightly then rightly adapted to a different setting.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think that case can be made.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
#3 What is an “evil human”? Are there any not evil humans? Do we mean “humans who are sinners”? That would be everyone including all of us. Are you suggesting a special class of humans? What defines the distinction between them and everyone else?
This objection is invalid. My use of "evil human" is fully in line with explicit biblical revelation, both in the Hebrew OT and in the Greek NT.
Proverbs 24:1 Be not thou envious against evil men, neither desire to be with them.
Prov. 24:1 WTT אַל־תְּ֭קַנֵּא בְּאַנְשֵׁ֣י רָעָ֑ה וְאַל־(תִּתְאָו) [תִּ֜תְאָ֗יו] לִהְי֥וֹת אִתָּֽם׃
Proverbs 28:5 Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things.
WTT Proverbs 28:5 אַנְשֵׁי־רָ֭ע לֹא־יָבִ֣ינוּ מִשְׁפָּ֑ט וּמְבַקְשֵׁ֥י יְ֜הוָ֗ה יָבִ֥ינוּ כֹֽל׃
Both Proverbs 24:1 and 28:5 have explicit Hebrew words for "men" and for "evil," and "evil" is modifying "men" in both verses.
2 Tim. 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
πονηροὶ δὲ ἄνθρωποι καὶ γόητες προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι. (2 Tim. 3:13 BGT)
The Greek NT uses explicit words for "men" and "evil" in this verse, and "evil" modifies "men" in the verse.
If you have a problem with such terminology, you have a problem with the wisdom of the Spirit.
This objection is invalid.
It was not an objection. It was a question. A bunch of them. None of which you answered.
#3 What is an “evil human”? Are there any not evil humans? Do we mean “humans who are sinners”? That would be everyone including all of us. Are you suggesting a special class of humans? What defines the distinction between them and everyone else?
The answers matter because you’re trying to work categorically with the topic of music and the occult. So your case relies on creating special categories such as “evil humans.” Then the reasoning is categorical: Evil humans should be avoided, this is an evil human, therefore he must be avoided.
So, for the reasoning to work we have to know what the essential qualities of the category are. What makes these evil men distinct? None of the verses you mentioned referenced the occult, interestingly.
They seem to be pretty ordinary liars, immoral, sensual and the like. … very ‘natural’ evil, it would seem.
I really don’t think it’s going to be possible to build the case you want to build categorically. There is too much generalizing, and generalizations—of the sort we build ourselves—are often easy to challenge if not fully defeat. The conclusion ends up being a question mark because it relies on two premises being 100% accurate (and 100% certain). If the premises are full of freighted terms, or just complexity, the argument is even more dubious.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It is, once again, telling that although the Bible has innumerable chances to inform believers that their ancestral, pagan derived musical forms are out of line, it does not do so once. Not for that from Molech, or Asherah, or Ba'al, or Ishtar, or any of the Greek pantheon.
God's people are simply told to praise Him in song, and of course when Paul does this, he is addressing Greeks in their native language--or for many slaves, in their second language. It is doubtful that the audience would have known and understood Hebrew genre well, and it's also doubtful that the Hebrew genre would have worked for the various languages used by the Gentile believers because Hebrew has a different natural meter than do Greek and Latin.
In short, Paul all but endorses the musical forms of the Gentiles, because it would be necessary for Gentile believers with various languages to praise Him in song. Also worth noting is that the Jewish genre we have today--klezmer, etc..--bear little resemblance to the hymnody that is found in conservative churches. So if we want hymns, we've got to give people freedom for their own genre, because our favored genre is very different from what we see from traditional Jews, and (ahem) derives quite a bit from the pre-Christian pagan groups of Europe.
Also worth noting is that Scripture does not condemn other cultural practices of the Gentiles with the exception of idolatry. The foods are clean, the architecture is clean, the trees planted by them are clean, and even the homes built by the pagans (Joshua 24:13) are clean.
It is what we would expect from 1 Corinthians 10:25, where Gentile believers are told to eat anything sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience unless the connection to pagan sacrifice is made explicit. This is telling because the historians tell us that for meat and wine, everybody pretty much knew it was almost certainly from a sacrifice.
God created us for freedom. Let's not forget the lessons we ought to have learned from Galatians, 1 Corinthians 10, and so on.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The answers matter because you’re trying to work categorically with the topic of music and the occult. So your case relies on creating special categories such as “evil humans.” Then the reasoning is categorical: Evil humans should be avoided, this is an evil human, therefore he must be avoided.
No, I am not relying on creating any "special categories" . . . I have already proven explicitly from Scripture that "evil" is used as an adjective to modify general words for human beings.
In my case, I specified who those evil humans were/are that I am talking about by directly stating that they engage in occult activities. Scripture indisputably teaches that participation in the occult is evil.
In fact, earlier in the thread, I proved from Acts 13 that the Bible speaks explicitly of a named professional occultist as being singularly evil in a manner that the Bible never speaks explicitly of any other human being's being evil who has yet lived on the earth.
I see problems with all but #1. . . .
Both #2 and #3 What is “supernatural evil”? Is there natural evil? How are they different? Are we called to have a more relaxed attitude toward ‘natural’ evil but a more strict attitude toward ‘supernatural’ evil? Why?
These statements of yours appear to be at odds with each other.
In any case, of course, there is supernatural evil. Satan and his demons are supernatural beings who are evil. Any evil that they engage in or incite other living beings to engage in is supernatural evil because it involves the activity of supernatural evil beings--either directly or indirectly--in the committing of that evil.
Asking questions that pit "supernatural evil" vs. a supposedly so-called "natural evil" is hardly legitimate questioning when you affirmed earlier that you did not see any problem with #1.
It might be worth doing to study the passages that specifically warn about practices/persons we’re calling “occult” and dig into what is actually commanded (in context) and why, to the extent we can get at that.
I've been doing this for several years now. The Bible has far more truth in this respect (at least 80 verses) than many people have understood or appreciated.
#4 What is a “distinctively occult musical practice”? Would it be specific chords? Melodies? Rhythms? Instruments? How are they “distinctive”?
Using human skull drums to play music that is intended to summon demons and have interaction with them is a plain example of a distinctively occult musical practice. For those who are willing to do the work in researching the subject, there is more than sufficient factual information available about such practices to have full confidence that there are many occultists in the world who engage in occult practices that are both intended to bring about interaction with supernatural evil and in fact do bring about interaction with supernatural evil.
I am doubting if we can communicate. But some other readers might follow this…
I did not deny or even question that there are evil people, that there is supernatural evil, etc. I asked what are they? How are they different?
What I’m trying to get at is how you are defining your categories. You are trying use categorical reasoning, but your categories lack clarity.
They have to be clear before they can be proved to be applicable. The trouble with categorical reasoning is that you have to have two rock solid premises to establish your conclusion.
(What follows is a bit of a dive, but there’s a point. It’s worth working through.)
Here’s a non-controversial example of categorical reasoning: (aka syllogism)
- Black dogs are mean (‘major premise’)
- People shouldn’t buy mean dogs (‘minor premise’)
- Therefore, people should not buy black dogs (conclusion)
This seems like really simple logic, but when you look closely at it and start asking questions (which is what I did a few posts ago), you realize this reasoning is actually a heavy lift.
First, the major premise creates two categories: black dogs and meanness.
For simplicity, lets assume “mean” is clear to all.
Surely “black dogs” is also a clear category? Well, you’d think so, but not really. Here comes the questions…
- How much black fur does the dog have to have to be a ‘black dog’?
- What if the dog is black with gray or white spots?
- What if the dog is solid colored but really really dark gray? How dark is ‘black’?
- What if the dog started out with black fur, but grew in some white as it got older?
So the premise gets weaker with each question. It becomes more uncertain. There is more to clarify and prove. In categorical reasoning, you have either prove both of your premises or they have to already be givens to your audience.
Otherwise, the conclusion fails.
The major premise gets even weaker when we consider what is actually being said. The statement “black dogs are mean” is really “all black dogs are mean.” It’s a category.
And when we restate it precisely we immediately see how vulnerable it is. You only need one nice black dog and the premise dies. You can also easily ask: Has every black dog been tested for meanness?
So the whole argument is sort of balanced on the tip of a needle—the needly being that major premise. The slightest breeze of a question topples the whole thing.
And we haven’t even considered the minor premise: People shouldn’t buy mean dogs. This also raises questions. (Since meanness is also in the major premise, most of these apply there also.)
- What does a dog have to do be ‘mean’?
- How often does the dog have to act that way to be ‘mean’?
- What if the dog is only that way toward strangers and threats? Is that bad? Is that actually ‘mean’ or more like loyal?
- What if we borrow the dog instead of buying it? Is it OK for it to be mean then?
I could go on, but the point is that the minor premise has pretty much parallel weaknesses with the major premise. The precise meaning of the premise is also a universal: “all people should not buy mean dogs.” One example where it makes sense to buy a mean dog destroys the premise and topples the whole argument.
Here’s the point: We are often far more persuasive if we make a smaller claim, and often the best way to do that is to make a probabilistic claim and use inductive or abductive reasoning.
I’m going to gloss over the inductive or abductive bit. It’s usually possible to express these other forms of reasoning in deductive form, so I’ll just do that to illustrate what I mean by a smaller, probabilistic claim.
What if we change the black dogs argument to this:
- A lot of black dogs are mean
- People shouldn’t usually buy mean dogs
- It’s probably a good idea to not buy a black dog
This is still not persuasive, but I think you can see how it’s better. The premises are harder to defeat and the categories are expressly not universal. Instead of “all” we are saying “some.” Best of all, this structure invites people to explore the argument rather than immediately seeing it’s weak and feeling the urge to kick the legs out from under it.
So, my advice is—given the nature of categorical argument and also the nature of the available evidence on music and the occult—avoid categorical reasoning on the topic and go for smaller, probabilistic claims and non-universal premises.
If the claim is more like “It might be a good idea to avoid these music styles because they often occur in occultic settings” this is easier to support and also invites the mind to engage in possibilities vs. immediately feeling the urge to smash—which is what categorical reasoning tends to evoke.
I don’t know whom to credit for this insight but somebody clued me in years ago to the fact that it is almost always (maybe ‘always’?) better to make a strong argument for a small claim than it is to make a weak argument for a large claim.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
What I’m trying to get at is how you are defining your categories. You are trying use categorical reasoning, but your categories lack clarity.
They have to be clear before they can be proved to be applicable. The trouble with categorical reasoning is that you have to have two rock solid premises to establish your conclusion.
Thanks for your lengthy comments about categorical reasoning, etc.
We approach determining what is true in different ways. For me, direct biblical statements and examples are more than sufficient to establish the validity of categorical rejection.
From my study of the numerous passages in Scripture about the occult, I have no doubt that the approach that I have set forth earlier in this thread concerning music and the occult is correct.
The only way forward that I see in having additional profitable interaction is to discuss specific passages and what they reveal. Given the extreme difficulty that I had in getting anyone to actually examine what God has revealed specifically about the occult in Acts 13, I question whether discussing other passages and what they specifically reveal would be any easier.
From my study of the numerous passages in Scripture about the occult, I have no doubt that the approach that I have set forth earlier in this thread concerning music and the occult is correct.
It’s good that you have no doubt, but I think you want more than that. You want to persuade at least some others, am I right? This will require reasoning that is clear and valid.
But apart from the question of approach to argument/persuasion, there are problems with several of your basic assumptions.
I’m going to list five points that you’ll probably feel strongly negative about immediately, but I hope that, after I explain and support, they’ll be some food for further thought on this topic.
- The supernatural is absolutely real, but the natural is never really separate from it.
- Supernatural evil is also real, but there is no such thing as natural evil.
- All humans are either children of light or children of darkness.
- ‘The unfruitful works of darkness’ is a poignant and picturesque term meaning “sin.”
- The Bible does not take ‘the occult’ more seriously than other forms of error and sin.
That’s the list. On to brief explanation and support.
#1 To say it another way, all of the natural is also supernatural. Consider this:
- God is a supernatural being and He created all of the natural (Genesis 1).
- God, the supernatural being, is also actively sustaining all of the natural (Col 1:17, Heb 1:3).
So, everything natural is also supernatural, and the apparent non-superalnaturalness of the natural is a result of our limited senses. Pictured as a Venn diagram, the natural is a circle completely enclosed in the larger circle of ‘the supernatural.’
Nothing is spooky in any special way because, if we could see it, everything is spooky. (I think C.S. Lewis put it as “the world is numinous.”). So the category “the supernatural” is equal to the category ”everything that is.”
#2 All evil is supernatural evil. It might also be natural evil. To say it another way, all evil is spiritual; it might also be physical. Consider this:
- Humans are made in the image of God are spiritual beings as well as physical beings. (Gen 1.27, 1 Thess 5.23, Num 16.22)
- Every human lives forever somewhere because we are not merely our bodies. (John 3.16, 2 Thess 1:9)
(I’m getting pretty tired… hopefully this will still be coherent. I might cut it short. It’s all in my head, but writing is work!)
To sum up this one: Everything humans do, they do both physically and spiritually: both naturally and supernaturally. The category of “supernatural evil” is equal to the category “all evil.”
#3 All Christians were “formerly darkness” (Eph 5.8). This means “darkness” = all unbelievers. It’s not a special few. That means the relationship with unbelievers taught in 1 Cor 5:9-10 and openly demonstrated by Jesus (Mark 2.15, etc.) includes children of darkness and those involved in darkness.
#4 This goes hand in hand with #3. The “unfruitful works of darkness” (Eph 5.11) are, in the context, the deeds of the children of darkness which is everybody who is not born again (Eph 5.8). The ‘unfruitful works of darkness’ are, again in the context, in contrast with “the fruit of light” (Eph 5.9), which is not “supernatural light” or “anti-occultic light” or anything special in that way. It’s simply the “good and right and true,” implying that the unfruitful works of darkness are simply the “bad and wrong and false.” (There is no evidence here that the “shameful” of Eph 5:12 has something to do with occult. Paul’s point seems to be that some especially disgraceful things people do in private reveal the true nature of all the works of darkness—that is, all sin.)
#5 Admittedly, this one takes more study and work than I want to do right now. For the moment, just this: Study all of the things called “abominations” in the OT and all the things punishable by death under the Mosaic covenant and note how few of them have to do with “the occult”—and also how ordinary some of them are (e.g. for “abomination”: giving money to God that came from prostitution Deut 23.18… or being dishonest in business Deut 25.16 ).
To sum up, there isn’t really any such category as “supernatural evil” as distinct from other evil, nor are the practices of divination, and witchcraft, etc. represented as a special category of sins that require more caution and separation than all other varieties of sin. To say it another way, the Bible identifies lots of sins that are as serious, or more serious, than those people think of as “occult practices” and also just as, or more, deceptive and alluring.
(Note that I did not say all sins are equally serious, damaging, or alluring. Nor did I say that divination and witchcraft are no more serious than any other sin. The point is that lots of sins are equally serious/alluring with “occult” and some are more so.)
I could go into the topic of how Satan’s most damaging work is not the stuff obviously associated with him and his demons—but rather the stuff that seems perfectly natural and innocent. (Jesus warned about wolves in sheep’s clothing… not wolves in wolves’ clothing). That’s a couple more thousand words, so I’ll just stop here.
It is not valid to reason that something must be rejected because it has some (not well defined) connection to “supernatural evil” or “evil men” when literally everything humans do has a connection to supernatural evil and evil men.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
To sum up, there isn’t really any such category as “supernatural evil” as distinct from other evil, nor are the practices of divination, and witchcraft, etc. represented as a special category of sins that require more caution and separation than all other varieties of sin. To say it another way, the Bible identifies lots of sins that are as serious, or more serious, than those people think of as “occult practices” and also just as, or more, deceptive and alluring.
I disagree. You are using supernatural as if all it means is pertaining to something that is spiritual. That is not how I am using the term, and that is not how the term is defined. For example, Merriam Webster's dictionary online defines it is as follows:
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
In proper usage, "supernatural" designates that which pertains to higher-order beings that are greater than humans, have knowledge that no humans can have on their own, have powers that no humans can have on their own, and have existed longer than any humans or any other lower life forms have.
(Note that I did not say all sins are equally serious, damaging, or alluring. Nor did I say that divination and witchcraft are no more serious than any other sin. The point is that lots of sins are equally serious/alluring with “occult” and some are more so.)
Interesting claim that you hold that some sins are more serious than the occult. What are those sins and what is the biblical data to support this view?
I could go into the topic of how Satan’s most damaging work is not the stuff obviously associated with him and his demons—but rather the stuff that seems perfectly natural and innocent. (Jesus warned about wolves in sheep’s clothing… not wolves in wolves’ clothing). That’s a couple more thousand words, so I’ll just stop here.
You will have to prove this claim about Satan's most damaging work, etc. biblically.
It is not valid to reason that something must be rejected because it has some (not well defined) connection to “supernatural evil” or “evil men” when literally everything humans do has a connection to supernatural evil and evil men.
You have not shown from Scripture the validity of your view that everything that humans do has a connection to supernatural evil.
Discussion