Ransom

[Clare73]

I was referring to God.

The two cases are: man can neither do "as God says," and man can neither do "as God does."

 

[timothyu]

The two cases are: man can neither do "as God says," and man can neither do "as God does."

Not talking about man. God says forgive 70x7 then demands a ransom?

 

[Clare73]

Not talking about man. God says forgive 70x7 then demands a ransom?

Yes, you are. . .who is supposed to forgive 70 x 7?. . .man, not God.

Is man all-righteous, all-holy, guiltless of offense and in a position to command payment (forgiveness ransom) for what offends his sinful nature?

God forgives (cancels debt) only what is paid for. . .which is why his Son had to pay for our forgiveness (cancellation of debt).

Are you familiar with the OT sacrificial system instituted by God for the forgiveness (payment of the debt) of sin?

 

[timothyu]

who is supposed to forgive 70 x 7?. . .man, not God.

Does not God set the example?

 

[timothyu]

Are you familiar with the OT sacrificial system instituted by God for the forgiveness (payment of the debt) of sin?

Then why was Jesus against it?
Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’

 

[d taylor]

Atonement is a huge misunderstood topic I could write a book on:

Some people are not “restored”, so was the payment not great enough for them?

If you say it paid all, then you have universal atonement, which leads to universal salvation, which takes lots of dancing around to try to avoid.

The ransom is huge virtually beyond believe that God/Christ would do such a thing, so if it is going to God and is paid by God, why does it need to be so bloody huge of a tragedy? Does it not make God’s Love weak, God needing help to forgive?

God forgiving 100% takes the 100% payment requirement away, nothing could really pay God off.

This “payment” as you call it, is Christ being severely tortured, humiliated and cruelly murdered, so how would that be wonderful for God and make Him want to forgive us? It really makes God out to be blood thirsty, but only if the ransom is for Him and not for the bloody, thirsty humans?

I hate it, but I personally need all I can get to feel forgiven, made holy and cleansed. God and Christ both would personally have preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through His veins, but it is I who need to know that blood is available for me outside Christ’s body. The blood of animals was used to cleanse the outside of everything made Holy, but I need my heart to be cleansed, so God/Christ have symbolically provided Christ’s spilled blood, to be drank in the form of wine at communion, so I can physically feel Christ’s blood flowing over my heart cleansing me.

Two bads do not make a right. If you do some minor crime, normally you pat money to the state or person to compensate or do some charitable activity (good stuff) to pay for the bad you do, but you are saying Christ does not do some really good thing but goes through something really bad to pay for others doing bad, is that not the way we should look at it?

It is never “just” to see to the hurting of the innocent to allow the guilty to go free.

You did not show in my post where I am wrong:

Do you and all Christians have to humbly accept Jesus Christ and him Crucified and is Jesus Christ and Him Crucified not the ransom payment?

_
​

People are not restored because they never believed in Jesus for God;s free gift of Eternal Life. The free gift is only free because Jesus took away all sin (past, present and future) of all time at the cross. and not only did Jesus take away the sin of the world, Jesus also defeated death with His resurrection from death.

So if a person whats to defeat death. Something they can not do on their own, they must believe in the only person who has defeated death Jesus. So that Jesus will give the person the life Jesus used to defeat with, The Life of God.

Entering Eternal Life is not about sin but belief.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Show me a verse where it states a person goes to the lake of fire because of their sin

Revelation 21 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

So not believing in Jesus is the only reason a person ends up in the lake of fire. Their sin has been fully paid for by Jesus.

I already explained why unlimite atonement does not work, yet you seem to ignore that. I'll try again.

Unlimited atonement teaches that on the cross, Jesus paid the debt of sin for everyone because He loves everyone and He wants everyone to be saved. That’s pretty much the common evangelical view. Jesus died for everybody. He paid the price for the sins of everybody. And all we have to do is tell sinners that He loves them so much that He paid the price and He wants them to be saved, and all they have to do is respond.

Now if that is true, then on the cross Jesus accomplished a potential salvation, not an actual one. That is, sinners have all had their sins atoned for potentially, and it’s not actual until they activate it by their faith. So, what we need to do is to tell sinners that they need to pick up the salvation that’s already been purchased for them. Since Christ died for everybody, everybody therefore can be saved. It’s just a matter of them coming to receive that salvation. And so, our responsibility is to convince people to come and take the salvation that’s been provided for them, to convince them to come and accept the gift.

The fallout of that would be like this. Hell is full of people for whom Christ died. I’ll say it another way. Hell is full of people whose sins were paid for in full on the cross. That’s a little more disturbing when you say it like that, isn’t it? Another way to say it would be that the lake of fire, which burns forever with fire and brimstone, is filled with eternally damned people whose sins Christ fully atoned for on the cross. God’s wrath was satisfied by Christ’s atonement on behalf of those people who will forever stay in hell.

it just sounds strange when you start to kind of pick it apart a little bit, doesn’t it? That Jesus died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the damned, and died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the glorified, that Jesus did the same thing for the occupants of hell that He did for the occupants of heaven, and the only difference hinges on the sinner’s choice? That is to say, the death of Jesus Christ, then, is not an actual atonement, it is only a potential atonement. He really did not purchase salvation for anyone in particular. He only removed some kind of barrier to make it possible for sinners to choose to be saved.

No sinner on his own can make that choice. This is the doctrine of absolute inability. He can’t make it. He cannot make that choice. All people - all people - are sinners, and all sinners are dead in their trespasses and sins. All of them are alienated from the life of God. All do only evil continually. All are unwilling and unable to understand, to repent and to believe. All have darkened minds, blinded by sin and Satan, all have hearts that are full of evil, all are wicked, desperately wicked. All desire only the will of their father who is Satan. All of them are unable to seek God. They are all trapped in absolute inability and unwillingness.

 

[d taylor]

Revelation 21 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”


I already explained why unlimite atonement does not work, yet you seem to ignore that. I'll try again.

Unlimited atonement teaches that on the cross, Jesus paid the debt of sin for everyone because He loves everyone and He wants everyone to be saved. That’s pretty much the common evangelical view. Jesus died for everybody. He paid the price for the sins of everybody. And all we have to do is tell sinners that He loves them so much that He paid the price and He wants them to be saved, and all they have to do is respond.

Now if that is true, then on the cross Jesus accomplished a potential salvation, not an actual one. That is, sinners have all had their sins atoned for potentially, and it’s not actual until they activate it by their faith. So, what we need to do is to tell sinners that they need to pick up the salvation that’s already been purchased for them. Since Christ died for everybody, everybody therefore can be saved. It’s just a matter of them coming to receive that salvation. And so, our responsibility is to convince people to come and take the salvation that’s been provided for them, to convince them to come and accept the gift.

The fallout of that would be like this. Hell is full of people for whom Christ died. I’ll say it another way. Hell is full of people whose sins were paid for in full on the cross. That’s a little more disturbing when you say it like that, isn’t it? Another way to say it would be that the lake of fire, which burns forever with fire and brimstone, is filled with eternally damned people whose sins Christ fully atoned for on the cross. God’s wrath was satisfied by Christ’s atonement on behalf of those people who will forever stay in hell.

it just sounds strange when you start to kind of pick it apart a little bit, doesn’t it? That Jesus died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the damned, and died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the glorified, that Jesus did the same thing for the occupants of hell that He did for the occupants of heaven, and the only difference hinges on the sinner’s choice? That is to say, the death of Jesus Christ, then, is not an actual atonement, it is only a potential atonement. He really did not purchase salvation for anyone in particular. He only removed some kind of barrier to make it possible for sinners to choose to be saved.

No sinner on his own can make that choice. This is the doctrine of absolute inability. He can’t make it. He cannot make that choice. All people - all people - are sinners, and all sinners are dead in their trespasses and sins. All of them are alienated from the life of God. All do only evil continually. All are unwilling and unable to understand, to repent and to believe. All have darkened minds, blinded by sin and Satan, all have hearts that are full of evil, all are wicked, desperately wicked. All desire only the will of their father who is Satan. All of them are unable to seek God. They are all trapped in absolute inability and unwillingness.

-
​

The verse never states these sinners are in the lake of fire because of sin. The verse just states these are the types of people who will be in the lake of fire. Plus Jesus taking away the sin of the world does not make a person a non sinner. All people believers and unbelievers are sinners until they die.

The distinction is made after death. the person who has believed in Jesus will no longer be a sinner in contrast to the unbeliever, who will remain a sinner for all eternity. They will die in their sin.
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

​

Calvinism is sickening and i hope one day you will be able to see its falseness and be able to believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life. Instead of believing in a false theology.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

All people believers and unbelievers are sinners until they die.

The moment Jesus Christ says a person is forgiven, that moment a person is justified. No justified person will go to hell.

Once justified, the person is a child of God. No child of God will go to hell.

1 John 3 1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are.

The verse never states these sinners are in the lake of fire because of sin.

The verse tells you what sins they comitted to be in hell. It is sin why people go to hell. Otherwise people who never heard of Gospel would go to Heaven because they never rejected Christ.

The Bible teaches that anything falling short of God’s perfection is sinful, and every human being who has ever lived, since Adam’s fall, has committed sin Romans 3:23 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'. Because Adam sinned, the entire human race now has a sinful nature Romans 5:12 ' Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned' — But people do not go to hell because of Adam’s sin; they go to hell because of their own sin, which they freely chose.

Calvinism is sickening and i hope one day you will be able to see its falseness and be able to believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life. Instead of believing in a false theology.

I am not a calvinist.
The scripture clearly teaches limited atonment, which you provided 0 arguments against.
Scripture also teaches election.

Romans 8 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

No one can come to Jesus unless God draws Him. It is God's work not yours.

Romams 915 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,but on God, who has mercy.

It does not depend on you, but on God who is saved.

God not only divinely elects those who will have faith in Jesus Christ, but also divinely elects to grant to these individuals the faith to believe in Christ. In other words, God’s election unto salvation is not based on a foreknowledge of an individual’s faith, but is based on the free, sovereign grace of Almighty God.

What you say is that Jesus atoned fpr everyone's sin, He drank the cup of God's wrath for everyone's sin, He satisfied God's wrath for every sinner, He reconciled all sinners to God, and all of that He has done was not enough. See how wrong this is?

 

[Clare73]

Does not God set the example?

No. . .God judges the world, man does not judge, man is judged.

God judges us, we do no judge him.

 

[Clare73]

Then why was Jesus against it?
Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’

I will wait for your presentation of that OT statement in its context.

 

[bling]

Ransom for mankind? Isn't God the one that said 70 x 7? If Jesus was against blood sacrifice in the temple, why would He want to be seen as one Himself?

Heb. 10:8 …“Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law.

If sacrifice and offerings did not “please” God, and we might agree, Christ sacrifice was not done to personally please God, were they done to help humans, since God does delight in helping humans?

Those “sacrifices” did nothing for God, but they really taught and helped humans.

Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

 

[bling]

Contraire. . .that is one of the main burdens of Scripture.

The “burden” is in your trying to show from scripture what is not there.

That is not the scenario either the OT or the NT presents, it is the scenario of sentimental human thinking.

God’s Love (forgiveness) is throughout scripture. There is never any “payment” for God unconditional forgiveness.

No. . .forgiving eliminates the need for me paying for my sin. I'm the one whose debt is forgiven (cancelled, removed) by someone else's payment of it. . .that someone being God himself, Jesus Christ. For the debt has to be paid in order for God's justice to be satisfied and the debt cancelled (forgiven).

If sins are 100% forgiven, there is nothing left to pay.

This is your idea and not found in scripture: “the debt has to be paid in order for God's justice to be satisfied.” Look at Matt. 18 the master forgives an unbelievable huge debt and no one pays the Master back.

God is just. . .and that means sin must be paid for, which is why Jesus came to die as a ransom (Mt 20:28) to buy us back, free us from our debt to God's justice of condemnation.
You diminish the righteousess and holiness of God by treating sin so lightly.

NT forgiving eliminates the need for the believer to pay the debt because Jesus paid it for him. . .but the debt will be paid, by Jesus through faith, or by oneself at the judgment.

You’re the one saying: “Our sins can be paid for.” I am the one saying, our sins are way beyond any method of being paid for, but God’s Love is great enough to forgive them.

Just like the jailed unmerciful servant in Matt. 18 could never pay the “debt” from prison he owed the Master, neither can anyone pay the debt at judgement or with faith in Christ, but God can forgive.

Contraire. . .

Justice (as well as all his other attributes) is God's nature, which is a "cosmic" law (if ever there was one) which does not change.

God makes the rules and since they are perfect there is no reason to change the rules, but God is not following the rules like they control His actions, but the rules follow His behavior. Where in scripture do you find this consistent rule that God does not have the Love or power to forgive, without receiving payment?

The OT is rife with it. . .not to mention the definition of the word itself.

Provide scripture please.

It's not about accepting. . .it's about fleeing to Jesus for mercy from God's justice, apart from which mercy there is only condemnation for everyone.

Your human notions of justice and forgiveness diminish God and the atoning work of his Son.

Is there any greater Loving Forgiveness than having our sins forgiven without the need for any “payment”?

We are just looking at one small part of Atonement.

Justice is treating all others equally (not the same way) in the areas which really count (being a rich man or Lazarus during our time on earth is not a significant factor, as an example).

 

[bling]

_
​

People are not restored because they never believed in Jesus for God;s free gift of Eternal Life. The free gift is only free because Jesus took away all sin (past, present and future) of all time at the cross. and not only did Jesus take away the sin of the world, Jesus also defeated death with His resurrection from death.

So if a person whats to defeat death. Something they can not do on their own, they must believe in the only person who has defeated death Jesus. So that Jesus will give the person the life Jesus used to defeat with, The Life of God.

Entering Eternal Life is not about sin but belief.

God is not only willing and able to forgive everyone's sins, but he has forgiven everyone's sins, like He did for the unmerciful servant Matt. 18, yet forgiveness has not taken place for everyone.

Matt. 18: 21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

Peter asks a good question and seems generous by providing his take on the answer of “is it seven times”, since three times is the Old Testament was given.

Christ makes a huge change by saying 77 times (virtually saying: “always”), so it is important to try to put yourself in their shoes hearing this idea for the first time, do you think the disciples would be thinking: “How is this change going to impact my life”, this is normal people’s thinking with new information. So will they will go on to think “How can I keep from being taken advantage of by brothers and sisters?”

We know from all other previous encounters: Jesus knowing their thinking, so He will address in a parable their problem with His previous answer, by giving them the true definition for “forgiveness”.



First off: This debt is totally unbelievably huge, no one has that kind of money to lend, no one could get into anywhere near this kind of “debt”, and there was no way to make that kind of payment. It is actually hard to believe one person could even spend this much money in a life time in the first century.

Matt 18:25 “Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered…” Here we know the Master knew there is no way to pay this debt and this servant entrusted with such a huge responsibility would also realize he could never pay it back.

Matt 18: 26 “…‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’” This servant is not asking for unconditional forgiveness, but “more time”, with the promise of paying it back in full, but the Master is not an idiot, the Master just previously said there is no way to pay this debt, and since this servant has been entrusted with and spent already 10,000 talents, he knows he cannot earn that amount. The servant is lying to the Master and maybe lying to himself.

This might be a good example of “hearing what you want to hear and not what was said”. How could this wise enough servant to be trusted with such a huge amount, believe the Master would just forgive and forget? When the Master: canceled (forgave) the debt and let him go, what did the servant “hear” (think) and possibly believe: “Oh the Master accepted my offer”, “I got time”, “I did OK”, “The Master does not care about the money”, or “the master must really like me”?

Luke 7: 36-50. Christ teaches us this truism: “He that is forgiven much Loves much” so Godly type Love would come automatically if a person was forgiven of an unbelievable huge Debt meaning he will automatically receiving an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love), so how is it possible for this “forgiven” servant to not Love one of the Master’s servants and treat him graciously?

Matt. 18: 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. There is no other debt mentioned, so this debt has to be referring to the debt the Master forgave, but if the debt is unconditionally forgiven how can the Master talk about the servant needing to pay it back in full, since it is a forgiven debt?

If we take all these Biblical truisms and allow them to define “Forgiveness” instead of taking our definition of forgiveness and force us to make an acceptation for God (Allow God to mislead us (lie)) Deity’s definition will resolve these apparent Biblical contradictions.

There is more to our having God’s forgiveness, than God just unconditional forgiving us, but this “more” will not mean God’s forgiving is conditional.

The “conditional” part for the potential receiver of forgiveness is found in completing the definition of forgiveness and not in the part the forgiver plays (God).

In order to complete the definition of Biblical forgiveness the person being forgiven has to humble accept that forgiveness as pure, undeserved charity.

The unmerciful servant did not humbly accept the Master’s unconditional forgiving as pure undeserved charity, so the transaction of forgiveness was not completed. We know this because he did not Love much and he still owes the money.

Again, it is not the Master taking His unconditional forgiveness back, but forgiveness itself, by definition did not happen.

How does this explanation address the question: “How can I keep from being taken advantage of by brothers and sisters?”

 

[Clare73]

The “burden” is in your trying to show from scripture what is not there.

Seems a good concordance would be useful here.

 

[timothyu]

f sacrifice and offerings did not “please” God, and we might agree, Christ sacrifice was not done to personally please God, were they done to help humans, since God does delight in helping humans?

If somebody heard that coming from the Sanhedrin at the time, they might have said The S was trying to cover their butts by making it a noble sacrifice.

 

[Ohorseman]

To whom was the ransom paid?

Satan and the fallen gods?

I like how the EO view atonement. And, I personally season it with other things I notice in the scriptures, along with ideas from certain scholars, like Michael Hiesner.

The first thing said about Christ was that He would crush the head of the serpent. God said that about Himself. What does this mean? Consider that Adam & Woman followed the serpent, rather than God. Dust is chaos, the breaking down of order. It is what we are, without God. And Satan eats dust - lost souls, & chaos itself.

Because of our choice to follow the serpent, we belong to him and the fallen gods (demons). We see this manifested in all the pagan religions. Christ came. He gave Satan and the fallen gods his own body and blood. He paid the price. Death. He ransomed us from them because they owned us, until Christ came & set us free, like Moses & the Exodus. Paul points out that a demon (fallen god) is behind an idol. That truth helps open up this view. Christ had no sin, and so death & hell could not hold him. He collapsed Satan and the fallen gods. And even so, some still choose to follow the serpent, & will follow him & his fallen angels all the way to eternal fire. That’s a short overview of my imperfect understanding of atonement.

I call this art, Yeshua Upon the Tree - A Terrible Beauty

 

[Clare73]

Heb. 10:8 …“Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law.

If sacrifice and offerings did not “please” God, and we might agree, Christ sacrifice was not done to personally please God, were they done to help humans, since God does delight in helping humans?

A text without a context is a pretext.

 

[The Liturgist]

Satan and the fallen gods?

Not from an EO perspective - satan has no rights and was entitled to no ransom, and was in no sense the beneficiary of anything Christ did in His passion, but rather was defeated along with death itself on the Cross.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, specifically addressed this error in his writings which he also summarized in a rather nice lecture at Seattle Pacific university around 2008, which actually explains the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint that you express an interest in rather nicely:

 

[The Liturgist]

Because of our choice to follow the serpent, we belong to him and the fallen gods (demons). We see this manifested in all the pagan religions. Christ came. He gave Satan and the fallen gods his own body and blood. He paid the price. Death. He ransomed us from them because they owned us, until Christ came & set us free, like Moses & the Exodus. Paul points out that a demon (fallen god) is behind an idol. That truth helps open up this view. Christ had no sin, and so death & hell could not hold him. He collapsed Satan and the fallen gods.

That’s not what the Eastern Orthodox teach about the atonement, except we do believe Christ did ransom us, but not from the devil, or from the angry father - the word ransom is accurate because he suffered on our account, but there was no one to pay the ransom to, per se, rather, its a bit like if a friend rescues you with great personal difficulty. We do believe he defeated Hell, but not in the manner you describe.

And while it is correct, according to the Septuagint and St. Paul, to say the gods of the gentiles are demons (or idols of demons, which is a nice way to reconcile the LXX and Masoretic reading of v. 5 from Psalm 96/95 LXX), those demons were always restricted by God in the same way satan was always restricted (notice how in Job he must obtain God’s permission to test the faith of Job).