Sunday, December 28, 2014

2-5-2008 spiritual warfare Part 3 part 2 commentary 3: don't let the demons talk but have them mediated by the person they're influencing? Is that a distinction without a difference in the end?

In any good trial you need ground rules, a bailiff to enforce them, bring in the person, get the truth, sentence them, condemn them, that's all we're talking about. It's a trial. It's a trial and the worst thing you can do is let a demon take over a person. I've seen it on a few occasions. I've seen people try and kill themselves, they were just sitting my office just talking. [makes a "whif" sound] voice changes, appearance changes, bodily posture changes.  I've seen little, tiny women demonstrate full man masculine voices, superhuman strength. I've seen things levitate in my office. Crazy stuff. You don't want that and I'll tell you that right now.

Some of you guys, you may have seen a guy, Bob Larson is his name, and he does this kinda crazy weird stuff on TV where people, if it's true (who knows it is), they appear to manifest full demonic control and people show up and they're, "Oh, that's amazing. That's cool."  No, no, no  Satan's proud. He's arrogant. He loves to show off. He loves to be demonstrating power. Don't let him do that. I don't speak directly to the demon. I'll explain what I do do in a moment. I speak to the person and then the demon answers them. In that way it's more like a translator. right? If someone, let's say they're someone who didn't speak in a language that I knew, and there was somebody there who was bilingual, I would have that person speak to the translator and then tell me. 

That's how we do it. I'll ask the person, I'll ask questions, they'll get it cuz it's a trial, they'll get an answer, they'll hear it or see it, and then they'll tell me. The other way is to speak directly to the demon but the only way the demon can speak back to me, then, is to take over and control that person's whole body and I don't want that to happen. I want them to be self controlled [and] alert. I want them to know what the enemy's been doing. I want them to be aware. And if they're already hearing vain regrets, accusations, lies, voices [then] the enemy's talking to them all the time anyways so they just need to learn to interpret that that's not the voice of the Lord and then communicate that to me.

It would seem as though there was a bit of trial and error in Driscoll arriving at the conclusion to not let the demons answer directly ... but if the demons had to take control of the demonized person in order to speak then how does this hold up?

Let's backtrack a bit, if demons are considered fallen angels and angels get speeches in the Old Testament then doesn't it seem ridiculous for Driscoll to assert that demons (i.e. fallen angels) can only answer direct questions through the humans they are tormenting?  There's no indication any of this was the case in any of the gospels or in the book of Acts, is there? 

Driscoll asks whether it's possible to even know if the Bob Larson stuff was true. Folks have written about Larson plenty, and a more recent article discusses Larson's exorcisms-via-Skype

While Driscoll expressed reservations to fellow leaders of Mars Hill whether the stuff that happened on Larson's scene was real, comparable questions could be presented for Driscoll's own accounts, couldn't they?  Who's willing to publicly testify on behalf of the stuff Mark Driscoll's said he's seen in counseling sessions?  One of his personal assistants?  Former pastors of Mars Hill? Recipients of demonic trial counseling? 

And while we're still on the subject of Satans or demons needing a human host to speak at all, did the evangelists mention any need for Satan to be embodied in a possessed person to tempt Jesus in the wilderness?

No comments: