Newsflash: Personal Discipline Is Not Legalism

To continue on with this nothing-something terminology, I agree with your characterization of Isaiah, Paul, and the ch8-temple-eaters.

The Corinthian Pagans – I would characterize as something-nothing, because they view the idols as real but don’t have any thought that those gods/idols are demonic.

The ch8 weak – I would characterize as something-nothing as well. Because (1) Paul puts them into the same category as the Corinthian pagans in 8:7, “eat food as really offered to an idol.” and (2) it is not clear that their objection is related to the demonic reality of those idols. (3) In fact, it appears that their conscience is not triggered due to the demonic reality but due to their former relationship to those idols and worshiping them, i.e., viewing them as something (a real god), not a nothing (a piece of wood that represents a powerless god that can’t do anything).

I think both the weak and strong had deficiencies in their knowledge, and that is one reason why Paul is saying in chapter 8 that you can’t make decisions on eating or not based on knowledge alone. In other words, asking if one is right or wrong is not where Paul is going (at least in ch 8 ) and thus not the correct approach. The way Paul argues, he is saying to the strong, even if you are right (which he will eventually show that they are not), you should still limit your freedom and not eat meat offered to idols if it would make your weaker brother stumble. There are other considerations than simply being right on an issue that govern one’s conduct – you have to love your brother (8:1-3) and take his conscience into consideration (8:11-13), making sure your actions don’t cause him to stumble.

[AndyE] To continue on with this nothing-something terminology, I agree with your characterization of Isaiah, Paul, and the ch8-temple-eaters.

The Corinthian Pagans – I would characterize as something-nothing, because they view the idols as real but don’t have any thought that those gods/idols are demonic.

The ch8 weak – I would characterize as something-nothing as well. Because …

In re-thinking that last post, I said wrong about the Corinthian Pagans. I would say:

The Corinthians pagans would characterize themselves as saying the idol is something-something.

— They would say, “Yes I honor it.” (the first term of s-s) And they would say “it’s really a god.” (the second term of s-s)

But, no I don’t agree with you about the the ch8 weak. We were very precise with the nothing-something terminology.

- The FIRST term is about whether the speaker believes that he should and does honor the idol and it’s sacrifice.

–-> The ch8 weak does NOT believe that, so the first term is “nothing” - although formerly he did believe that, so formerly he would have said, “something.”

- The SECOND term is about whether the speaker believes that the idol is a real idol, a real false god.

–> the ch8 weak does believe that, so the second term is “something.”

[AndyE]…The way Paul argues, he is saying to the strong, even if you are right (which he will eventually show that they are not), you should still limit your freedom and not eat meat offered to idols if it would make your weaker brother stumble. There are other considerations than simply being right on an issue that govern one’s conduct – you have to love your brother (8:1-3) and take his conscience into consideration (8:11-13), making sure your actions don’t cause him to stumble.

This part, I pretty much agree with. Working on it…

I had a feeling we were not exactly on the same page, yet.

Here is how I view the A-B paradigm we are using (which I’m sure is not how you are viewing it):

A – How does the person view this carved image that purports to represent a god?

B – How does the person view the demonic aspect behind the worship of that carved image?

For A I believe there are two choices:

(1) NOTHING — it is no god, it is only wood, it is worthless, it can’t do anything, the gods it represents are not real (for support, see all the verses I referenced earlier that state this)

(2) SOMETHING — it represents a real being, a real god

For B I believe there are two choices:

NOTHING – No demonic connection

SOMETHING – Real demonic connection with the idol and its worship

The biblically correct view is A-NOTHING B-SOMETHING. The B-part doesn’t really come into play in chapter 8, but it represents the knowledge deficiency of the strong.

The strong, based on solid Biblical support that agrees with Isaiah and Paul believe A-NOTHING. Based on that knowledge alone, feel like they should have no restriction eating idol-offered-meat.

The weak, based on their past, used to believe A-SOMETHING and can’t really get to A-NOTHING. Even if they believe A-NOTHING at some level, they are so appalled at what they used to worship that they want nothing to do with idol worship or feasts or meat offered to idols and think it is wrong to partake at all. Deep down, they think A-SOMETHING is true somehow, and it may be because B-SOMETHING is true even if they are not conscious of it.

[AndyE] I had a feeling we were not exactly on the same page, yet.

Here is how I view the A-B paradigm we are using (which I’m sure is not how you are viewing it):

A – How does the person view this carved image that purports to represent a god?

B – How does the person view the demonic aspect behind the worship of that carved image?

For A I believe there are two choices:

(1) NOTHING — it is no god, it is only wood, it is worthless, it can’t do anything, the gods it represents are not real (for support, see all the verses I referenced earlier that state this)

(2) SOMETHING — it represents a real being, a real god

For B I believe there are two choices:

NOTHING – No demonic connection

SOMETHING – Real demonic connection with the idol and its worship

I started applying the nothing-something terminology to the different people because I thought we had carefully defined our terms. But we have not. I’ll work on this…

It strikes me that it is worth noting that just because one believe an idol is an A-NOTHING (to use my definition), doesn’t mean it is OK to worship it. This is true completely apart from the demonic aspect. The very fact that it is A-NOTHING and not the true God means to worship it is an abominable to God. Idol worship of an A-NOTHING false god is very bad. So, I think there are two things going on — (1) how one values or relates to a A-NOTHING false god and (2) the ontological aspect of that false god.

I don’t think it works to draw the line on “demonic” or “not demonic.”

Reason #1: Generally, all idols are demonic.

Back on pg5 of this thread, Rajesh(here) and I(here) said that the Deuteronomy passage Paul quoted means that “demons” is a general statement about all idols.

Further evidence: Paul speaks of the idol sacrifices as being sacrifices to demons. But he never specified which idol was demonic. Garland, p.373, lists “Chronos, Poseidon, the Sun, the Calm, the Sea, Aphrodite, Artemis, Isis, Dionysus, a tree, Fortune, Apollo, Hermes, Zeus, Asclepius, Bunaea, and others” as idols in and around Corinth.

Paul doesn’t specify which ones he’s calling demonic. So how, in a city like Corinth, would it be helpful IF demonic-nondemonic was the watershed and Paul only said that some were?

Clearly, Paul was speaking in general about idols when he said demonic.

Reason #2:

As you said, even if some are not demonic, that doesn’t mean it’s ok to worship them!

Again, I am working here on trying to be precise enough that we can use these terms effectively and thoughtfully. Although an improvement, nothing-something seems to be ambiguous about which is which.

I think I really like this:

Andy: I think there are two things going on — (1) how one values or relates to a A-NOTHING false god and (2) the ontological aspect of that false god.

What if we use “Me_______-Onto______”?

“MeNothing-” means it is nothing TO ME. The speaker does not seek help from it, does not worship, does not participate in sacrifices to it, etc.

“MeSomething-” means the speaker does trust, worship, and participate in sacrifices to the idol.

“-OntoNothing” meant that it isn’t a false god, it isn’t an idol or anything.

“-OntoSomething” means that it is a worshiped idol. It’s a real idol. It’s demonic.

Earlier you said, Andy: The story of Dagon in 1 Sam 5 is designed to show that the God of Israel was real and Dagon was not. All these false gods are just created out of the imagination of man (cf. Isa 44:9-19). Because of all that, we can conclude that these false gods are not real. Dagon, Baal, and Artemis, for example, are not real beings.

But I don’t think it’s helpful to say Dagon or any other false god wasn’t “real.” Assume there was a chair in the room with Dagon and the Ark. God chose the statue of Dagon to humiliate and chop the head off of - not the chair. Because the chair is just a chair - it’s not a false god - nobody’s worshiping it. So God doesn’t humiliate the chair. The statue of Dagon gets humiliated because people are honoring it as a false god.

Using our new precise terms, people should view Dagon as MeNothing-OntoSomething. The Phillistines called Dagon MeSomething-OntoSomething.

[Dan Miller]

I don’t think it works to draw the line on “demonic” or “not demonic.”

Just for clarification, I agree that all are demonic. What I’m trying to capture in my B section is the person’s knowledge of that truth. I do think that is a key piece of knowledge that the Corinthians lacked, or didn’t think about, or ignored.

When I say that Dagon is not real, I mean there is no actual alive being that is Dagon.

The idea of Dagon came from man’s imagination, someone thought him up, made an image, and said that’s Dagon. The image is a real solid image and people worship that image as if Dagon did exist as an actual alive being, but it’s all fake. It’s a complete hoax. There is no actual Dagon. That image is only a piece of wood or stone. Dagon is a false god in at least two senses: (1) he is not the one true and living god and (2) he has no being, is not alive, and has no abilities.

So, Dagon is both real and not real:

• He is real in that he is a false god that people worship.
• He is not real in that he is not an actual being.

That means we can think about him and other idols in two ways:

• Option 1: To you, he is real, he is SOMETHING because (1) people worship him and (2) there is a demonic reality behind that worship.
• Option 2: I can say he is not real, he is a NOTHING, because (1) as a being he does not actually exist and (2) he is not the true God.

So, when Paul agrees with the Corinthians that an idol is nothing, he is thinking in terms of option 2. However, Paul has in the back of his mind option 1 as well. In fact, both are true.

Our disagreement, I think, stems from the fact that you are primarily thinking in terms of option 1; whereas I think Paul is thinking in terms of option 2 (in chapter 8).

[Dan Miller] What if we use “Me_______-Onto______”?

“MeNothing-” means it is nothing TO ME. The speaker does not seek help from it, does not worship, does not participate in sacrifices to it, etc.

“MeSomething-” means the speaker does trust, worship, and participate in sacrifices to the idol.

“-OntoNothing” meant that it isn’t a false god, it isn’t an idol or anything.

“-OntoSomething” means that it is a worshiped idol. It’s a real idol. It’s demonic.

Now, to respond to this…

All idols would then be OntoSomething. When I suggested what I did, my point, from an ontological standpoint, was that only the true God is an actual living being. An idol is not an actual living being.

As for MeNothing, MeSomething…I would say that to both the weak and the strong an idol was now a MeNothing (using your definitions). I could be wrong, but I don’t think this does much if anything to distinguish between the weak and the strong. I’m not sure it gets us anywhere. Sure, the strong are saying they don’t value or worship the idol, but when they say an idol is nothing, I don’ think they are only saying they don’t value or worship it. I think they are making a statement in line with my option 2 above (it is not a living being and it is not the one true God).

[AndyE]

When I say that Dagon is not real, I mean there is no actual alive being that is Dagon.

The idea of Dagon came from man’s imagination, someone thought him up, made an image, and said that’s Dagon. The image is a real solid image and people worship that image as if Dagon did exist as an actual alive being, but it’s all fake. It’s a complete hoax. There is no actual Dagon. That image is only a piece of wood or stone. Dagon is a false god in at least two senses: (1) he is not the one true and living god and (2) he has no being, is not alive, and has no abilities.

[AndyE]…

Option 2: I can say he is not real, he is a NOTHING, because (1) as a being he does not actually exist and (2) he is not the true God.

…

But again, we lose some precision here. Because we’ve agreed that he is real and he does exist as much as any false god ever did. So we end up saying, “Well, ‘does not exist,’ in what sense are you saying that??”

I mean when God tells us have no other gods, it is not appropriate to answer, “I don’t know what that means because there are no other gods. I couldn’t disobey that if I wanted to.”

I’ve been saying that part of “nothing” is that I don’t seek help for information/advice from it, even if other people do. There’s no doubt that pagans over centuries have sought those things from idols. Have they ever received actual demon-given advice? I don’t know. If they did, it was bad advice that they should not have sought or followed. So it’s not so much that they can’t speak as that they can’t speak to me because I won’t listen.

That’s why I have said nothing means nothing to me. I don’t seek advice or help, etc.

All idols would then be OntoSomething. When I suggested what I did, my point, from an ontological standpoint, was that only the true God is an actual living being. An idol is not an actual living being.

I agree that all idols are OntoSomething (real false gods).

But not everyone agrees on that. The ch8strong (temple-eaters) say the idol is MeNothing-OntoNothing. That’s why Paul, arguing against participation with idols, has them protest, “What? You’re not saying an idol is anything, are you?!?” To them, if the idol is anything in any way, it’s not “nothing.”

As to “actual living being,” I do think that demonic comes pretty close to that.

As for MeNothing, MeSomething…I would say that to both the weak and the strong an idol was now a MeNothing (using your definitions). I could be wrong, but I don’t think this does much if anything to distinguish between the weak and the strong.

I agree that both the ch8weak and the ch8strong take a MeNothing view. And Paul - and Isaiah. That’s what it means to turn from idols and to the Living God.

Scripture does not teach that idols have any existence as actual living beings. Nor does it teach that the idols themselves are demons or that they “have” demons. What Scripture does say is that when sinful humans offer things to idols, they offer things to demons.

1 Corinthians 10:20 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.

That reality does not establish that the idol itself is a demon or that it “has” a demon or that it exists as a living being in any actual sense.

[Dan Miller] But again, we lose some precision here. Because we’ve agreed that he is real and he does exist as much as any false god ever did. So we end up saying, “Well, ‘does not exist,’ in what sense are you saying that??”

I’ve been trying very hard to explain in what sense I’m saying that. I’m not sure how else to say it. Dagon does not exist in that there is no living being Dagon that exists. There is an image of him that man created. He exists in people’s minds but he is like Santa Claus. There are lots of statues and pictures and stories of Santa Claus, but he is imaginary. Santa Claus is not a living being; he does not exist. Neither does Dagon in that sense. Instead of Dagon, let’s pretend that those people worshiped a plastic Santa. In one sense (my option 1) they have set up a real false god that they worship, but it’s stupid because in another sense (my option 2), Santa is not real because he doesn’t exist.

I mean when God tells us have no other gods, it is not appropriate to answer, “I don’t know what that means because there are no other gods. I couldn’t disobey that if I wanted to.”