Friday, January 02, 2015

2-5-2008 spiritual warfare Part 3 part 4 commentary 6 "will that stand as truth before the white throne ... ?" Why would Driscoll think that saying those words keeps a person from lying?

 command that the answers you give stand as truth before the white throne of God almighty. Some will say you don't ask any questions of the demon because they're liars and they lie and I say, "I know they lie but when they stand before the white throne of God mentioned in Revelation, all truth will be known and I check it by that." I'll show you how that's done.

Next question, then I ask, "Will that stand as truth before the white throne of the Lord God almighty?"

The 2008 spiritual warfare session becomes quite a slog, almost interminable, in the "practical" part 3.  And one of the things that is striking is how often Driscoll came back to that question, "Will that stand as truth before the white throne of the Lord God almighty?"  It almost sounds as though Driscoll perceived the question as inherently endowed with some innate power just by dint of its formulation.

But why would it, necessarily?  Even for Christians who affirm the deity of Christ and that triune formulation of God as Father, Son and Spirit, why on earth should Christians presume that that specific combination of words Driscoll comes back to time and again would ensure that a counselee wouldn't lie?  Let's set aside the bit about demons for a moment, because Driscoll never even considers the possibility that the entire demon trial/inventory might be brought to bear on someone with no demons whom Driscoll erroneously interpreted as probably having a demonic influence.  That's precisely why it should be considered, because even though Driscoll told leaders at Mars Hill he believed they had erred in focusing so much on the flesh and the world they overlooked demons maybe pastors who had leaned heavily on the flesh and the world were doing something that was not only biblically sanctioned but also sensible (yes, dear potential secular readers, those two are not necessarily ALWAYS at loggerheads.  :) ). 

It would seem that if one wished to cast out demons the way Jesus was described as casting out demons then a few general patterns might emerge.  First, Jesus never really needed to know the names of the demons or to ask if the demons had names.  It wasn't relevant.  Jesus cast out demons and that was that.  Second, Jesus is not described as sending demons to the pit.  So as Driscoll's ground rules proliferated they seemed to proliferate without any use of biblical texts to provide particularly compelling evidence.

We haven't even gotten close to mechanics of Tyre or Lucifer, have we?

No comments: