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!

44712 reads
RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

So you're comparing the voice of the Godhead to demonically influenced music. I don't think you have comparable things there. Where does the Bible describe people hearing supernatural music played by demons? Wicked people can play music, but we have no way of knowing if supernatural sounds that demons make are audible to humans, or if they are then reproduceable by human instruments. 

 

 

The point of talking about this passage is to show that supernaturally produced sounds were humanly audible but not humanly understood.

 

But you're trying to make a point using two things that can't be compared logically

 

Sounds that are humanly audible can be compared regardless of the source. What two things are you saying cannot be compared?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

What does "fellowship" mean in your statement? You suggest that it means "not having anything to do with things connected," but that's not a very clear definition because it includes such a wide spectrum of life. For example, tea leaves are used in occult readings. Does no "fellowship" with "things connected" mean that I must not have anything to do with tea? I looked up Hindu worship, and I found out that Hindus offer water, fruit, and flowers to their gods. Am I supposed to not have "anything to do with" water, fruit, and flowers because they are used in idolatrous worship? When I was young, I wasn't allowed to play with a deck of playing cards because the cards have been referred to by some as "The Devil's picture book." From what I remember, the King was supposed to represent the devil, the Queen was supposed to represent Mary, and the Joker was supposed to represent Christ. Am I supposed to stay away from games that use playing cards because there exists a "connection" to the occult?

 

The Bible is clear that I must not practice idolatry and I must not practice the occult. The actual specifics of "anything to do with things connected" are not as clear as you make it out to be. We live in a world where wicked people have used a multitude of different items in idolatrous worship and occult practices. Staying away from all such things would require living in a monastery, and even then you'd fail to live up to the standard.

 

 

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. The same cannot be said about music.

I have already talked some about what fellowship with demons is in a previous post. Did you somehow miss it?

I know we discussed the sons of Lamech in a previous post. They were all wicked men who were influenced by demons. Jabal was the father of people who produced tents, Jubal was the father of musicians, and Tubal-Cain was the father of those who produced tools. Are we to stay away from tents and music and tools because they were produced by people who were influenced by demons?

We've also talked about the spectrum of influence that demons wield. Everything that humans produce is produced by people who have been under some level of influence within that spectrum.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Sounds that are humanly audible can be compared regardless of the source. What two things are you saying cannot be compared?

You compared the voice of the Godhead, which came directly from a supernatural being, with music that comes from human beings.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Sounds that are humanly audible can be compared regardless of the source. What two things are you saying cannot be compared?

 

You compared the voice of the Godhead, which came directly from a supernatural being, with music that comes from human beings.

Let's try this again. John 12:27-30 records the following:

1. Humans heard loud sounds.
2. They did not know (and could not know) that those sounds had meaning.
3. The sounds, however, did have meaning and that meaning was not humanly knowable.
4. Certain sounds that humans can hear do have meanings that humans cannot know, but there is meaning in the supernatural realm to those sounds, and that meaning can be known by supernatural beings.

Does this make sense? 

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

I know we discussed the sons of Lamech in a previous post. They were all wicked men who were influenced by demons. Jabal was the father of people who produced tents, Jubal was the father of musicians, and Tubal-Cain was the father of those who produced tools. Are we to stay away from tents and music and tools because they were produced by people who were influenced by demons?

We've also talked about the spectrum of influence that demons wield. Everything that humans produce is produced by people who have been under some level of influence within that spectrum.

No, I'm not talking about something that I said in another thread. I'm talking about my comments on Eph. 4:26 in this thread. I treated a key point in those comments.

Jay's picture

...but there is meaning in the supernatural realm to those sounds, and that meaning can be known by supernatural beings.

But if humans can't hear those sounds or understand what those sounds communicate, then how can you hold them culpable for fellowshipping with demons when they use "wrong" music?  And how can anyone even know if we are doing things the "right way"?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

RajeshG's picture

Jay wrote:

...but there is meaning in the supernatural realm to those sounds, and that meaning can be known by supernatural beings.

But if humans can't hear those sounds or understand what those sounds communicate, then how can you hold them culpable for fellowshipping with demons when they use "wrong" music?  And how can anyone even know if we are doing things the "right way"?

Earlier in my comments on John 12, from which comments you have partially quoted here, I said in point 1 that humans did hear those sounds but that they were not humanly understandable.

RajeshG's picture

God emphatically warned His people about serving the gods of wicked peoples:

Exodus 23:31 And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. 32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. 33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.

Deuteronomy 7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

He declared that those who serve their gods would surely be ensnared by doing so. By consuming in a worship context what has been offered to an idol, humans serve false gods and surely are ensnared. They are taken captive by the demons who are the real entities behind those idols.

Psalm 106 records that this is what happened to the Israelites because of their serving idols:

Psalm 106:34 They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: 35 But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. 36 And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them.

Consider that the NT warns about a minister's need to have a good testimony with unbelievers so that he 
will not fall into the snare of the devil:
 
1 Timothy 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

We can be certain that the people who consumed what had been sacrificed to the idol in the GCI fell into the snare of the devil based on their not having a good testimony with the unbelievers who regarded their wild, out-of-control, perversity as shameful.

Moreover, Scripture speaks of those who have been ensnared of the devil as people who are taken captive (or who have been held captive) by the devil to do his will:

2 Timothy 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

NAU 2 Timothy 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

Putting all these Scripture passages together, we have ample justification to understand that people who come into fellowship with demons by partaking of in a worship context what has been sacrificed to an idol are people who are ensnared by the devil. The devil seeks to devour anyone that he can; by coming into fellowship with demons, a human being comes strongly under the influence of demons!

God warns us not to come into the fellowship with demons that ensnares people!

Jay's picture

Earlier in my comments on John 12, from which comments you have partially quoted here, I said in point 1 that humans did hear those sounds but that they were not humanly understandable.

Yes. you did.  My fault.  I still don't understand how this works, though.  How do we know "Rock of Ages", for example, isn't really "All Hail King Satan" to supernatural beings?  How can we prove any of this or even know that the song doesn't have a double meaning at the supernatural level?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Let's try this again. John 12:27-30 records the following:

1. Humans heard loud sounds.
2. They did not know (and could not know) that those sounds had meaning.
3. The sounds, however, did have meaning and that meaning was not humanly knowable.
4. Certain sounds that humans can hear do have meanings that humans cannot know, but there is meaning in the supernatural realm to those sounds, and that meaning can be known by supernatural beings.

Does this make sense? 

Not really, and I'll explain why. Here is the paragraph from your original statement - "This account points to the folly of thinking that an accurate musicological analysis of demonically influenced music must be humanly possible. We do not have that ability, and we do not have the authorization to analyze such music. We are to reject it categorically"

The specific subject that you are comparing to God's misunderstood sounds is "demonically influenced music." You are telling me that there are certain sounds within the "demonically influenced music" that are not understood by us but which are "known by supernatural beings." So let's first compare the source of the sounds to see if the analogy works. The source in John 12 is God. The source of music we hear on this earth is human composers. I know you want to focus on the "demon influence," but the actual source of the sound we hear in today's music is the instruments being played. A sound direct from God is just not the same as a sound which may or may not be reflected in some secondary way by musical instruments. A sound direct from a demon would be comparable. This is why i asked you earlier "Where does the Bible describe people hearing supernatural music played by demons?" Do you think human composers actually hear demon music in their heads while they are composing and then try to replicate it without being aware of what it means? To me, this is the only way that human-composed music would have a "meaning in the supernatural realm."

If I were to make a logical progression comparing the God's sound to music, I'd do it this way:

1.The people heard loud sounds

2. They did not know, and could not know, that the sounds had meaning.

3. Because the people could not understand the sound, the righteous message from God had no positive spiritual influence on them. John 12:37 tells us the people continued on in their unbelief.

4. If demons send a message in music in a way that is impossible to understand, then any wicked message from demons would have no negative influence on the hearer. How can one be influenced negatively by a message that can't be understood?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

No, I'm not talking about something that I said in another thread. I'm talking about my comments on Eph. 4:26 in this thread. I treated a key point in those comments.

But I didn't see a comment about music in those comments on Eph. 2:26. You talked about eating things offered to idols, which you described as an act that led them to further wickedness. Just a few posts ago you wrote:

"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. The same cannot be said about music.I have already talked some about what fellowship with demons is in a previous post. Did you somehow miss it?"

I didn't connect the Ephesians 4:26 post with music, because you didn't mention music in that post and because I'm not seeing how music puts one in fellowship with demons. Eating idol meat in the temple certainly does, but the Bible doesn't desribe music as putting one in fellowship with demons.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

No, I'm not talking about something that I said in another thread. I'm talking about my comments on Eph. 4:26 in this thread. I treated a key point in those comments.

 

But I didn't see a comment about music in those comments on Eph. 2:26. You talked about eating things offered to idols, which you described as an act that led them to further wickedness. Just a few posts ago you wrote:

 

"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. The same cannot be said about music.I have already talked some about what fellowship with demons is in a previous post. Did you somehow miss it?"

I didn't connect the Ephesians 4:26 post with music, because you didn't mention music in that post and because I'm not seeing how music puts one in fellowship with demons. Eating idol meat in the temple certainly does, but the Bible doesn't desribe music as putting one in fellowship with demons.

You are getting things turned around backwards. The point of Eph. 4:26-27 is that we are commanded not to give the devil an opportunity to influence us. When people engage in activities that put them into fellowship with demons, they give the demons the opening to influence them.

Applying that dynamic to Exodus 32, the point of Exodus 32 is not that music puts people into fellowship with demons--the point is that we have no biblical basis to hold that people who were strongly influenced by demons, as the people in the GCI were, somehow still produced God-honoring music. People under strong demonic influence cannot produce God-honoring music.

Because of the strong demonic influence on them, nothing that they did in their worship was God-honoring, including the music that they played and the way that they played it.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Let's try this again. John 12:27-30 records the following:

1. Humans heard loud sounds.
2. They did not know (and could not know) that those sounds had meaning.
3. The sounds, however, did have meaning and that meaning was not humanly knowable.
4. Certain sounds that humans can hear do have meanings that humans cannot know, but there is meaning in the supernatural realm to those sounds, and that meaning can be known by supernatural beings.

Does this make sense? 

 

Not really, and I'll explain why. Here is the paragraph from your original statement - "This account points to the folly of thinking that an accurate musicological analysis of demonically influenced music must be humanly possible. We do not have that ability, and we do not have the authorization to analyze such music. We are to reject it categorically"

 

The specific subject that you are comparing to God's misunderstood sounds is "demonically influenced music." You are telling me that there are certain sounds within the "demonically influenced music" that are not understood by us but which are "known by supernatural beings." So let's first compare the source of the sounds to see if the analogy works. The source in John 12 is God. The source of music we hear on this earth is human composers. I know you want to focus on the "demon influence," but the actual source of the sound we hear in today's music is the instruments being played. A sound direct from God is just not the same as a sound which may or may not be reflected in some secondary way by musical instruments. A sound direct from a demon would be comparable. This is why i asked you earlier "Where does the Bible describe people hearing supernatural music played by demons?" Do you think human composers actually hear demon music in their heads while they are composing and then try to replicate it without being aware of what it means? To me, this is the only way that human-composed music would have a "meaning in the supernatural realm."

If I were to make a logical progression comparing the God's sound to music, I'd do it this way:

1.The people heard loud sounds

2. They did not know, and could not know, that the sounds had meaning.

3. Because the people could not understand the sound, the righteous message from God had no positive spiritual influence on them. John 12:37 tells us the people continued on in their unbelief.

4. If demons send a message in music in a way that is impossible to understand, then any wicked message from demons would have no negative influence on the hearer. How can one be influenced negatively by a message that can't be understood?

No, you are not understanding the point that the passage establishes. The passage establishes that there are sounds that have meanings but the meanings are not knowable by humans even though the humans heard the sounds.

I am not saying that John 12:27-30 teaches that those sounds still had unknown influences on the people even though they could not understand what they heard. I am simply pointing out that just because humans think that certain sounds are just sounds but have no meaning to them does not establish that those sounds in fact are meaningless sounds.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

You are getting things turned around backwards. The point of Eph. 4:26-27 is that we are commanded not to give the devil an opportunity to influence us. When people engage in activities that put them into fellowship with demons, they give the demons the opening to influence them.

Applying that dynamic to Exodus 32, the point of Exodus 32 is not that music puts people into fellowship with demons--the point is that we have no biblical basis to hold that people who were strongly influenced by demons, as the people in the GCI were, somehow still produced God-honoring music. People under strong demonic influence cannot produce God-honoring music.

Because of the strong demonic influence on them, nothing that they did in their worship was God-honoring, including the music that they played and the way that they played it.

And the point I want to make that that the reason it was not honoring to God was because it was being played during a time of idolatrous worship, not because there was something inherently wrong with a style. Do you believe that a specific style of music was formed at this moment, thus making THAT style forever to be rejected by future humans? We don't even know the style, so how can an acknowledgment that we should reject that style used in the GCI help us to make decisions about our own music today?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

No, you are not understanding the point that the passage establishes. The passage establishes that there are sounds that have meanings but the meanings are not knowable by humans even though the humans heard the sounds.

I am not saying that John 12:27-30 teaches that those sounds still had unknown influences on the people even though they could not understand what they heard. I am simply pointing out that just because humans think that certain sounds are just sounds but have no meaning to them does not establish that those sounds in fact are meaningless sounds.

Oh, I think I'm understanding the point quite well. I'm just not accepting the principle that you're drawing from that point as having an application to music. Do you believe there are certain unknowable, unexplainable supernatural sounds hidden within certain styles of music?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

And the point I want to make that that the reason it was not honoring to God was because it was being played during a time of idolatrous worship, not because there was something inherently wrong with a style.

What objective biblical basis do you have for your assertion that there was not something inherently wrong with a style? How do you know that is true even for people who are under strong demonic influence?

Kevin Miller wrote:

Do you believe that a specific style of music was formed at this moment, thus making THAT style forever to be rejected by future humans? We don't even know the style, so how can an acknowledgment that we should reject that style used in the GCI help us to make decisions about our own music today?

The point that I am making stands regardless of whether a specific style of music was formed at this moment or it had existed for centuries prior to this moment. Unless one denies a priori that there cannot be any styles of music that humans must forever reject, the notion that there is never any need to reject musical styles permanently cannot be predetermined.

Yes, we do not even know the style, but the demons who influenced the humans to play in that style or those styles know perfectly what they were and are fully capable of influencing humans in our days to reproduce those styles without any humans knowing that their style(s) are the same one(s) as were used in the GCI.

The larger point is that unless one predetermines that there cannot be any styles that are unacceptable to God for human use in worship, the GCI provides a fully biblical basis for holding that there are such styles. Once a person acknowledges that there are such styles, he will no longer hold that all styles must inherently be acceptable to God for human use in worship.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

No, you are not understanding the point that the passage establishes. The passage establishes that there are sounds that have meanings but the meanings are not knowable by humans even though the humans heard the sounds.

I am not saying that John 12:27-30 teaches that those sounds still had unknown influences on the people even though they could not understand what they heard. I am simply pointing out that just because humans think that certain sounds are just sounds but have no meaning to them does not establish that those sounds in fact are meaningless sounds.

 

Oh, I think I'm understanding the point quite well. I'm just not accepting the principle that you're drawing from that point as having an application to music. Do you believe there are certain unknowable, unexplainable supernatural sounds hidden within certain styles of music?

Unless you have definitive biblical evidence that there cannot be certain unknowable, unexplainable sounds, whether supernatural or not, whether hidden or not, within certain styles of music, the biblical data supporting that point from Exodus 32 and elsewhere concerning music must be treated thoroughly for what it says without predetermining what cannot be true.

RajeshG's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Unless one denies a priori that there cannot be any styles of music that humans must forever reject, the notion that there is never any need to reject musical styles permanently cannot be predetermined.

I should have said, "Unless one assumes a priori that there cannot be any styles . . ." 

RajeshG's picture

To interpret the GCI accurately, it is vital not to regard it in generic terms as an occasion of idolatry. The GCI was idolatry in a specific context--a feast to the Lord.

From a biblical standpoint, key components of a feast included people gathering together, eating and drinking, music, and dancing. Because the GCI was a perversion of a feast, we rightfully should expect information about how the key components of a feast were corrupted.

Because the people ate and drank things offered to an idol in the worship context of a religious feast, they came into fellowship with demons who strongly influenced them to pervert what they did in the key components of that feast. On this reading, there simply is no possibility of rightly interpreting the GCI as anything other than including a demonic perversion of their music and their dancing.

This demonic perversion of their music and their dancing was not merely that they played music, sang, and danced to an idol. Under strong demonic influence, how they played their music, what they played, how they sang, what they sang, and how they danced were all ungodly.

Their ungodliness in how they engaged in all these components of a religious feast was so pronounced that their unbelieving enemies regarded what they did as shameful. The unbelieving enemies of Israel would hardly regard the worship of an idol as shameful.

Moreover, the text specifies that what was regarded as shameful by their unbelieving enemies was the perversity of their being wildly, out-of-control in how they were doing what they were doing in their demonically perverted religious feast:

KJV Exodus 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies

NAU Exodus 32:25 Now when Moses saw that the people were out of control-- for Aaron had let them get out of control to be a derision among their enemies

This inspired record shows that the Spirit stresses for us that their enemies did not regard that their shameful perversity was simply or mainly the object or the context of their music, dancing, etc.--their enemies judged the  perverse manner of what they were doing to be shameful!

A right handling of the GCI, therefore, stresses to us that there are demonically influenced ungodly ways to play music, sing, and dance!

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

This demonic perversion of their music and their dancing was not merely that they played music, sang, and danced to an idol. Under strong demonic influence, how they played their music, what they played, how they sang, what they sang, and how they danced were all ungodly.

Their ungodliness in how they engaged in all these components of a religious feast was so pronounced that their unbelieving enemies regarded what they did as shameful. The unbelieving enemies of Israel would hardly regard the worship of an idol as shameful.

Moreover, the text specifies that what was regarded as shameful by their unbelieving enemies was the perversity of their being wildly, out-of-control in how they were doing what they were doing in their demonically perverted religious feast:

I can see that "how they danced" was being described as shameful from the passage. They were naked and out of control in their dancing. So of course, we need to make sure that our dancing today to the Lord is not naked and out of control. 

Since we don't have a record of "how they played" or 'what they played," then I think you are making a leap to say that their playing was different from any other time they would be having a feast "to the Lord." If this really was a feast "to the Lord," then I think we would have to assume normal worship music unless the passage specifically says something has changed from what they normally did "to the Lord." We shouldn't add to the words of Scripture, no matter what your mental logic might tell you would happen when people are under "strong demonic influence." The passage doesn't tell us the people were "possessed," so I'm not sure what Scriptures you are using to inform you as to how "strongly influenced" people would act. It's great to hear your opinion about it, but the words of scripture do not actually condemn "how they were playing' or "what they were playing," so I'm not sure how you can make definitive assessments about the ungodliness of the music itself.

Usually when God pronounces the sinfulness of something, He makes a definitive statement around which obedience can be objectively measured. This is why idolatry is sinful. God did not want the people to be worshipping any graven image, even if they made that image to represent the true God. It was still a grievous sin. We would not even be discussing a "golden calf" incident if there had not been a idolatrous golden calf around which the people were worshipping. Were they singing during this worship? Yes, but that doesn't make singing inherently bad. Since the Bible doesn't even mention a style, I'm not sure how you can make the leap that a style was bad, without a specific command that would be getting disobeyed by playing that style.

If I knew which particular song was used during the GCI, I likely would not use that particular song in my own church service, but condemning any "similar" music as also being demonically influenced is a stretch. Especially if the music is only "similar" and not actually used during false worship. It's especially a stretch since we have no record of the style and can thus only go by a subjective analysis of "wild" or "out of control." I'm all for keeping an open mind to acknowledge the reality of godly, ungodly, or even neutral music. The commands of the Bible tell me if something is ungodly, so I can certainly acknowledge that "there are demonically influenced ungodly ways to play music, sing, and dance!" I see the ungodliness, however, in the fact that the playing, singing, and dancing took place in a specifically disapproved activity, that is, representing God with a graven image. The nakedness, as well, is disapproved in the Bible.

But a style being disapproved? You'd have to show me a specific verse for that one.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

But a style being disapproved? You'd have to show me a specific verse for that one.

This means that you start with the presupposition that all musical styles/genres must be acceptable to God for use in worship. What is the biblical basis for your holding that view?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Since we don't have a record of "how they played" or 'what they played," then I think you are making a leap to say that their playing was different from any other time they would be having a feast "to the Lord." If this really was a feast "to the Lord," then I think we would have to assume normal worship music unless the passage specifically says something has changed from what they normally did "to the Lord." We shouldn't add to the words of Scripture, no matter what your mental logic might tell you would happen when people are under "strong demonic influence." The passage doesn't tell us the people were "possessed," so I'm not sure what Scriptures you are using to inform you as to how "strongly influenced" people would act. It's great to hear your opinion about it, but the words of scripture do not actually condemn "how they were playing' or "what they were playing," so I'm not sure how you can make definitive assessments about the ungodliness of the music itself.

Scripture does not teach that people have to be possessed in order for them to be influenced by demons to such an extent that they are not in their right minds:

KJV 2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

NAU 2 Timothy 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

People who are possessed cannot be delivered from their possession except through supernatural intervention in miraculous ways. 2 Timothy 2:25-26, however, speak of people who have been ensnared by the devil, taken captive by him, but who are still recoverable through proper instruction and gentle correction that God uses to bring them to repentance.

People under strong demonic influence who are not in their senses but not possessed are incapable of worshiping God properly in any form.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Since we don't have a record of "how they played" or 'what they played," then I think you are making a leap to say that their playing was different from any other time they would be having a feast "to the Lord." If this really was a feast "to the Lord," then I think we would have to assume normal worship music unless the passage specifically says something has changed from what they normally did "to the Lord." We shouldn't add to the words of Scripture, no matter what your mental logic might tell you would happen when people are under "strong demonic influence." The passage doesn't tell us the people were "possessed," so I'm not sure what Scriptures you are using to inform you as to how "strongly influenced" people would act. It's great to hear your opinion about it, but the words of scripture do not actually condemn "how they were playing' or "what they were playing," so I'm not sure how you can make definitive assessments about the ungodliness of the music itself.

The passage does say something changed: they had consumed things offered to an idol in a worship context!

Beyond that, you are assuming that these people were all spiritual people who routinely worshiped God properly and had no previous experience with ungodly styles of music. Neither of those assumptions are valid.

A mixed multitude went up with the Israelites. This mixed multitude was experienced in ungodly worship forms, and they were ungodly people. They had no predisposition to "normal worship music" and there was not anything that they "normally did to the Lord" in worship.

God even says that the Israelites were disobedient to Him from the day that He brought them out of Egypt. The people who engaged in the GCI were disobedient to God even before they came into fellowship with demons yet you hold that we must regard that somehow under strong demonic influence they chose to worship God with musical forms that were godly. This is a biblically unsupportable view.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

But a style being disapproved? You'd have to show me a specific verse for that one.

 

 

This means that you start with the presupposition that all musical styles/genres must be acceptable to God for use in worship. What is the biblical basis for your holding that view?

Since the Bible doesn't specify "styles" when speaking of music, then then there is no Biblical basis for saying one way or another that a style is acceptable or unacceptable. You have a habit of making an assertion and then trying to support your assertion by saying that other people have to prove a different assertion. Why would I try to prove that all styles are acceptable if the Bible says nothing specific about styles?

Suppose I were to make an assertion such as this - "When we wrestle against demonic principalities and powers (Eph. 6:12), those principalities and powers sometimes cheat." Would that be a supportable statement? Suppose I then added, "If you disagree, then you have to give me the biblical basis for saying that all demons stick to the rules and play fair." Would you have a biblical basis for saying demons play by the rules? I imagine your first question to me would be, "Since the Bible doesn't give us any spiritual wrestling rules, then how can you say they cheat?" I wouldn't bother answering that, but I'd just repeat that you have to show me that demons play fair.

This is what I see you doing with "styles." You are making an assertion that some styles are evil, even though the Bible doesn't give us "spiritual style rules." You are then insisting that I presuppose all styles to be acceptable, when i haven't said that. I've said that the Bible doesn't clearly say, so I'm NOT going to make an assertion, and I DON'T have to prove an assertion that I haven't made. You still have to prove your assertion that when people are sinning as they play music, then they have infected an entire style to be unacceptable to God from then on. This is, of course, impossible to prove since the Bible doesn't mention styles, yet you keep making these assertions of unacceptable styles.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Beyond that, you are assuming that these people were all spiritual people who routinely worshiped God properly and had no previous experience with ungodly styles of music. Neither of those assumptions are valid.

A mixed multitude went up with the Israelites. This mixed multitude was experienced in ungodly worship forms, and they were ungodly people. They had no predisposition to "normal worship music" and there was not anything that they "normally did to the Lord" in worship.

Boy, you really like making proclamations about my supposed assumptions.  Where did I say they were all spiritual people? Some were disobedient, but even in the midst of their slavery, they had managed to maintain an Israelite identity.

So I'll just question you're assumptions. I see you assuming that the Israelites had maintained no religious identity apart from the Egyptians, but were totally given over to worshipping Egyptian gods in such a way that they had no knowledge of how to worship the true God. How can you assume that "there was not anything" they normally did to the Lord in worship? In Exodus 3:9, God says "The Israelites’ cry for help has come to Me," How could they know how to cry out to God if they were willfully worshipping only Egyptian gods? In Exodus 4:31, Moses had spoken to Aaron and Aaron had spoken to the people and the verse says "The people believed, and when they heard that the Lord had paid attention to them and that He had seen their misery, they bowed down and worshiped." Yet you somehow assume these people only knew how to do ungodly worship.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Beyond that, you are assuming that these people were all spiritual people who routinely worshiped God properly and had no previous experience with ungodly styles of music. Neither of those assumptions are valid.

A mixed multitude went up with the Israelites. This mixed multitude was experienced in ungodly worship forms, and they were ungodly people. They had no predisposition to "normal worship music" and there was not anything that they "normally did to the Lord" in worship.

 

Boy, you really like making proclamations about my supposed assumptions.  Where did I say they were all spiritual people? Some were disobedient, but even in the midst of their slavery, they had managed to maintain an Israelite identity.

 

So I'll just question you're assumptions. I see you assuming that the Israelites had maintained no religious identity apart from the Egyptians, but were totally given over to worshipping Egyptian gods in such a way that they had no knowledge of how to worship the true God. How can you assume that "there was not anything" they normally did to the Lord in worship? In Exodus 3:9, God says "The Israelites’ cry for help has come to Me," How could they know how to cry out to God if they were willfully worshipping only Egyptian gods? In Exodus 4:31, Moses had spoken to Aaron and Aaron had spoken to the people and the verse says "The people believed, and when they heard that the Lord had paid attention to them and that He had seen their misery, they bowed down and worshiped." Yet you somehow assume these people only knew how to do ungodly worship.

No, if you read carefully what I wrote, I did not say that "the Israelites had maintained no religious identity apart from the Egyptians, but were totally given over to worshipping Egyptian gods in such a way that they had no knowledge of how to worship the true God. How can you assume that "there was not anything" they normally did to the Lord in worship?"

My comments were specifically about the mixed multitude who went out with the Israelites--the mixed multitude were not Israelites.

Jay's picture

The more I read this thread, the more it reminds me of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, particularly this scene:

The Joker: Uhh, you…you just couldn't let me go, could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible, aren't you? Huh? You won't kill me, out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness... and I won't kill you, because you're just too much fun! I think you and I are destined to do this forever.

Batman: You'll be in a padded cell forever!

The Joker: Maybe we could share one! You know, they'll be doubling up at the rate this city's inhabitants are losing their minds.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

No, if you read carefully what I wrote, I did not say that "the Israelites had maintained no religious identity apart from the Egyptians, but were totally given over to worshipping Egyptian gods in such a way that they had no knowledge of how to worship the true God. How can you assume that "there was not anything" they normally did to the Lord in worship?"

My comments were specifically about the mixed multitude who went out with the Israelites--the mixed multitude were not Israelites.

Ah, so are you then saying that only the mixed multitude was involved in creating and worshipping the golden calf? Were they the only ones eating and rising up to play?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Since the Bible doesn't specify "styles" when speaking of music, then then there is no Biblical basis for saying one way or another that a style is acceptable or unacceptable. You have a habit of making an assertion and then trying to support your assertion by saying that other people have to prove a different assertion. Why would I try to prove that all styles are acceptable if the Bible says nothing specific about styles?

The Bible does not have to use a specific word to have teaching that pertains to the concept that word denotes.

Kevin Miller wrote:

This is what I see you doing with "styles." You are making an assertion that some styles are evil, even though the Bible doesn't give us "spiritual style rules." You are then insisting that I presuppose all styles to be acceptable, when i haven't said that. I've said that the Bible doesn't clearly say, so I'm NOT going to make an assertion, and I DON'T have to prove an assertion that I haven't made. You still have to prove your assertion that when people are sinning as they play music, then they have infected an entire style to be unacceptable to God from then on. This is, of course, impossible to prove since the Bible doesn't mention styles, yet you keep making these assertions of unacceptable styles.

Reread this quote carefully, "You still have to prove your assertion that when people are sinning as they play music, then they have infected an entire style to be unacceptable to God from then on." The last part of your sentence presumes that the style was somehow "infected," which means that you believe that the style itself was either good or maybe neutral and also acceptable to God to begin with and also would be acceptable to God when used later by different people in different settings, etc.

How do you know that style was "infected" by people instead of being corrupt to begin with? How do you know that it was originally acceptable to God and somehow got "infected"?

Yes, you have never said in so many words that you believe that all styles are inherently good, acceptable to God, etc. When, however, you speak in terms of a style being infected, you are in effect asserting that very point.
 

Kevin Miller's picture

Jay wrote:

The more I read this thread, the more it reminds me of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, particularly this scene:

The Joker: Uhh, you…you just couldn't let me go, could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible, aren't you? Huh? You won't kill me, out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness... and I won't kill you, because you're just too much fun! I think you and I are destined to do this forever.

Batman: You'll be in a padded cell forever!

The Joker: Maybe we could share one! You know, they'll be doubling up at the rate this city's inhabitants are losing their minds.

Oh, but I want to be the Riddler. He comes up with the best plans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrtEmxtO2qQ

Pages