Q-Final for Bryan: Demonic Forces

Bryan, I think I could come up with another 20 questions based on your responses so far, but I think I'l going to make this my last question for the sake of your time and the interest of the readers of this blog; as such it will run long.  I welcome you to post any other questions you think help clarify your theology or your views, and I'll be pleased to answer them.

A theme which evolved here is your accusation that the cessation must demand that whatever it is you are asserting happens in your experience, it must be demonic.  That is: the cessationist has no other choices but to brand your view of common-place supernatural events as somehow quarterbacked by Satan and run by his Demon minions.  I think the record is clear that I have not accused you of anything like that, but to make it clearer still, I refuse that explanation for one reason only: I think you're just deeply confused about what you have experienced.

Here's what I think: I think in the end that those who are charismatic don't keep their own record in clear view, and they remember only the few times they think they had spirit-filled confirmations of their beliefs but are forgetful (intentionally) of the many times their beliefs have been falsified or incriminated by the lack of substantiation.  I think the balance sheet of even the most ardent and reliable Charismatic is tilted to implausibility, but because they never write down anything that would require red ink, they simply operate as if they are in the orthodoxological-black.

My explanation of your mistakes is a lot more ordinary than you would allow to me believe, I think.  Why must the cessationist, as you have said several times in this exchange, see you as working with the Devil in order to disbelieve your view?  Isn't there a much more ordinary explanation?

---

The only reason I've emphasized those things several times is because the "demonic" theme developed first in cessationist rhetoric early on. That theme is not my thread to own. It is in fact what has already been woven through in various ways on the cessationist end of this discussion. I have responded strongly to it and still believe my response is completely warranted.

If you've feel I've denied you your more ordinary explanation of my "mistakes" and unfairly broad-brushed you in to the "demonic" rhetoric that was characteristic mostly of John Macarthur and Strange Fire etc. , then I apologize. Your view has now been made more clear. I can accept that at face value.

But the fact still stands Frank: John Macarthur, The Strange Fire Conference,  and the hard position and camp you've defended, has already accused us of attributing the works of Satan to the Holy Spirit. That is crystal clear. And I have argued in this discussion that the opposite has occurred--you guys have attributed genuine works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. Hence this gap between us. Regardless if you want to distance yourself from having to choose between just those two options, in many cases, it is still only those two options which emerge, in my opinion. But in any case, the "demonic" accusations are already out there, some of them specific, some implied.

So to your questions:  Why must the cessationist, as you have said several times in this exchange, see you as working with the Devil in order to disbelieve your view of your experience?....is there not a much more ordinary explanation?

Well,  it obviously depends on what experience(s) we're talking about here doesn't it. Because sure, in some cases there could be a much more ordinary explanation as you put it. It could be true that I and other continualists are just deeply confused about what we've experienced. Now, I don't believe that at all. If anything, I'm more certain now of what I believe and what I've experienced than I ever have been.  But what experiences are we talking about here? Are you sure all of them can be described as common-place supernatural events? 

So that we have a good example and a specific experience to go by, I want to use Matt Chandler's and Bob Hamp's testimonies. Reader, if you've not listened to these testimonies, they are here. I use these because their story is very similar to many many other testimonies--that is, I think they represent a more common prophetic/power evangelism type experience among many other charismatics and continualists. I think how we assess the testimony of Matt and Bob's experience gets to the heart of this debate. Here's what I mean:

After you listen to the testimonies, here are the immediate options that I think you are left with:

A.  Matt and Bob are lying.

B.  Matt and Bob are not lying, but they are deeply confused about what it is they've experienced.

C.  Matt and Bob are telling the truth, it actually happened, and they are completely sober minded about their experience.

Now, if you pick C. and choose to believe their testimony, your next two options emerge:

A.  God supernaturally revealed those details to Matt and arranged it all.

B.  Satan supernaturally revealed those details to Matt and arranged it all.

Matt's point in his testimony is that if this is not God, then that leaves the Devil. And as he points out--Satan is not viewed in Scripture as a roaring lion roaming about seeking someone to save. We know for a fact that Satan is not in the business of redemption, so we know this experience didn't come from an evil source or deceptive counterfeit. 

So, Frank, if it is experiences like this that we are talking about, then I have to say that I agree with Matt--that only two options are possible here. The nature of the experience is clearly one that requires dependency on information Matt could not possibly know apart from supernatural revelation--so therefore cannot be explained apart from being one of two supernatural sources. And of course I'd argue it cannot be explained apart from the revealing ministry of the Holy Spirit.

I realize we can disagree on what to call the experience, or how we interpret the experience. But in terms of origin, it's gotta be either the Holy Spirit or some other supernatural personality giving the information and setting it all up.

Now, if we can agree that the source of this experience is indeed God, we can then ask, how do we interpret this experience Biblically? What do we call it? Providence? Prophecy?

If I'm understanding your question correctly Frank, I think it'd be similar to what Lyndon Unger asked in his post about Matt's experience. He asked "Are the only options for explaining these occurrences that they're either acts of true prophecy or demonic misleading?" He then answers that question by saying, " How bout this option: It is a work of God's providential orchestration of lives and minds, but it's not prophecy. It is God, but it's not prophecy."

Is this close to what you'd argue Frank? I know you've stated that we continualists simply don't have categories for providence (we actually do though) that frankly the Bible has and you have. 

At any rate, I have two observations and responses against what Lyndon Unger suggests is a viable option. 

One, the argument actually compares the wrong two categories--in other words it doesn't compare apples with apples. Matt Chandler is not arguing that it's either an act of the true gift of prophecy (interpretation of experience) or demonic misleading (source of experience), he's arguing that it's either God (source of experience) or demonic misleading (source of experience). 

The right comparison would be to compare two potential sources of the experience (God or the Devil),  or to compare two options of the interpretation of the experience (gift of prophecy or providential orchestration).

Therefore, the only two optional sources, given the supernatural revelatory nature of Matt's experience are still either the Holy Spirit or demonic misleading.

Two, the argument also seems to ignore the detailed nature of Matt's testimony. You might not agree that we can call it the biblical gift of prophecy, but there was clearly revelation involved that forces you, I think, to not comfortably fit that kind of testimony in a nice little providential orchestration category that doesn't do justice to what Matt is saying actually happened.   
  
Which brings me back to your question Frank--Why must the cessationist, as you have said several times in this exchange, see you as working with the Devil in order to disbelieve your view of your experience?....is there not a much more ordinary explanation?

There is not a more ordinary explanation when it comes to assessing the testimony of this kind of revelatory experience like Matt Chandler testifies to and that many many others can testify personally to. In terms of concluding what you believe to be the source of the experience, you do have to decide whether or not you think it's authored by God or if you believe it's demonic misleading. But you don't have to believe we're partnering with Satan to disbelieve or disagree with what we ultimately choose to call our experience. 

Lyndon Unger agrees it's from God and would agree we need to give Him glory for it, but refuses to agree that it's the gift of prophecy. Fair enough. I disagree that it can't be considered a gift of prophecy, but we know we disagree on that point...and probably always will. 

Now, the question of whether or not we call it true prophecy or providential orchestration is obviously important and at the heart of this debate over the continuation of the miraculous gifts, but it's not the most important observation, in my opinion, that surfaces here.

This is the most important: If you agree, with Unger, that the source of Matt's detailed revelatory experience was God---that is, if you believe it was providentially produced and carried out by power of the Holy Spirit as a work we should praise Him for, then you have conceded to one important foundation of continualist belief and experience:

God speaks outside the Bible, but not in contradiction to it.  

There is no way around that conclusion. The only way around that conclusion is to flat-out deny Matt's experience was produced by the Holy Spirit or to downplay the reality of the revelatory nature of what Matt actually is testifying to experiencing.   

Therefore, if you are truly understanding what Matt's testimony of his revelatory experience (as representative of our experience) says about reality and you really believe it was from God, then you are forced to either conclude that God indeed does speak outside the Bible, or that Matt's experience wasn't from God after all. Which would mean also, that if you refuse to believe that God speaks outside the Bible, then you are forced to conclude Matt's experience and our experiences like this are actually demonically inspired, because the supernaturally revelatory nature of them clearly doesn't allow you a more ordinary explanation outside of those two supernatural sources. 

Furthermore, because it's important for our conversation about what's normal for the Christian life, I'll say this: Once you believe and embrace that God does this kind of thing, who are we to decide what is normal for Him to do and what isn't? He can do it anytime He wants. Indeed, according to many other eye-witness testimonies, He is doing these things, similar to what He did through Matt Chandler and Bob Hamp, around the world through his people to reveal the Father's love and advance the gospel of the Kingdom. I think there is enough evidence for these things that to deny that their source is the Holy Spirit, is doing what J.P. Moreland said: It's "rejecting beliefs that have enough rational support to make them intellectually obligatory to believe."  

Q12 for Bryan: The Coffee gambit

In your Q5 answer, Bryan, you proposed a second "to do" for cessationist critics: cessationists should meet with continualists to "discover why exactly they're willing to continue their practice" in spite of criticism -- effectually, he should "take them out for coffee" to resolve the disagreement.

This question obviously drives to motives on the Continualist side, and the assumption is that the Continualists have pure motives. The conclusion, then, is that pure motives ought to close the question.

When I had this same discussion with Adrian Warnock, he asked me the obverse of your question: what are John MacArthur's motives for criticizing Continualists?

Why is it that when this matter is in discussion between Continualists and Cessationists, the default assumption of the Continualist is that Continualism is based on pure motives and Cessationism is based on bad/impure motives?  Asked another way, is there a biblical basis for the Continualist rhetoric regarding the motives of the two sides of this debate?

---

I don't think there is any general default assumption of the Continualist that Continualism is based on pure motives and Cessationism is based on bad/impure motives. Nor do I think my suggestion #2 in your fifth question can be understood and summarized fairly as me arguing and concluding "pure motives should close the question."

It's so easy for my own motives to be mixed. Sorting them all out is even more exhausting. I'd say equally true are the attempts of both cessatonists and continualists to make sense of the opposing view and to explore what drives or compels it. It's normal--especially if we're convinced the opposing view is wrong or even dangerous--and even more so if we used to hold the opposing view but don't any longer.  

It's easy to project our own self-discovered motives for why we used to believe a certain way--on to someone else who still believes that way. And that's not fair. But let's face it, there are a number of ex-cessationists as well as ex-charismatics (who'd argue from the Bible and experience) who all have their own story to tell which indeed many would personally and immediately identify with, perhaps many of our readers. Yet both groups would still have to accept not everyone will identify with it or walk the same journey they have to arrive at where they are today on this issue. That fact certainly plays a role in what's happening here--both sides weighing in ex-cessationist and ex-charismatic testimonies.  

I think a good example on the Cessationist end of what you've suggested Continualists are primarily guilty of would be John Macarthur's many comments and other things said at Strange Fire, but specifically his comments on John Piper.

The quote can be found here. 

John Piper's response to Strange Fire is here (which I'm sure you've seen), but I'll let you decide after reading and listening to both if Macarthur's words aren't a little truth and appreciation littered with some false assumptions and attempts to draw conclusions for a huge audience about the views and the motives/reasons why Piper believes the way he does. 

I mention Macarthur's comments on Piper simply to point out that assumptions and motive speculation occur on the cessationist side-- starting with General Macarthur himself. And this is just one example. Should we really tally up who has more? 

So if it’s okay for Macarthur to speculate publicly at Strange Fire about the motives of John Piper and others, who weren’t there to defend themselves for the sake of the listener, why is it unreasonable or “adolescent” as you put it, for Adrian Warnock to ask you why John Macarthur doesn’t seem to be open to allowing more public opportunity for these very men whose motives he’s speculating about, to defend themselves and converse with him in civil public discourse? Seems like a fair question to me Frank. It’s your response to Adrian, frankly, that came across as unfair and adolescent. Adrian's opinion of the conversation is here. As keen as you and the parrots on your shoulder are at pointing out your opponents' alleged question avoiding and word twisting, I'm surprised no-one has taken you to task yet and bitten your ear for the level of disconnect you are responsible for in that exchange. Instead, all I've heard from your side is how unhelpful the exchange was as if the blame obviously falls on Adrian Warnock.   

    

That being said, I think asking the question, "Why?", and suggesting possible reasons without precisely knowing them all first, is common to everyone when grappling with how someone believes differently than you do. Perhaps in this debate, one shared tendency is for both sides to argue from their perceived strengths and compare those perceived strengths to the perceived weaknesses of the other side?   

The bottom line is that both sides, if given the benefit of the doubt about the best of their intentions, are attempting to defend and be faithful to what Scripture teaches and protect others from harmful error. I believe that some Cessationists, including you, are sincerely doing that (though in my opinion--from an incomplete perspective), but it shouldn't and doesn't stop me from exploring why they still believe what they do, what they say, and why they present themselves the way they do (as in the rhetoric at Strange Fire conference etc.) ,if I genuinely believe that much of what they're believing and teaching is false. 

At any rate, I don't think you can so easily decide that one camp is doing this motive gazing & guesstimates more than the other, especially in a way that would pin only one side down to have to answer a question like this. Therefore, our side doesn't need to defend that we've some kind of Biblical basis for any rhetoric regarding the motives of the two sides of the debate because we're not assuming in broad-brush fashion that Continualism is based on pure motives and Cessationism is based on bad motives like you've suggested we are. However, I think we can all agree, Biblically speaking, that heart and motive matters. 

What's disturbing about this question Frank is that while John Macarthur can accuse half-a-billion christians of some sort of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, counterfeit worship, and say things such as, "They feel like they have free license to abuse the Holy Spirit and even blaspheme His holy name. And they do it constantly", here we are also getting accused of presumptuous rhetoric about the motives of Cessationists. Really?              

Sitting down with the men I mentioned and other Continualists might just help you work through your own assumptions about their assumptions, and plug that chink in Cessationist armor which you suggest exists only in Continualist outfits.  But if not, in the very least you might discover how they like their coffee. 

Q11 for Bryan: How the Other Half Lives

Bryan, you offered 5 suggestions in your answer to Q5, and I now have questions about those suggestions.


Your first suggestion was, in effect, that cessationist critics ought to see how the other half lives and deeply consider the "cautious continualist" response to the excesses of the movement.  I think this suggestion exposes a decent amount of naivete on your part.  For example, Michael Brown has used Benny Hinn as a platform for his campaign in response to the Strange Fire conference - that looks like the sort of thing the men from GTY were complaining about at Strange Fire.  They have inspected it, and it looks unfortunate for the Continualists regarding any kind of credibility when it comes to saying that they really do some sort of moderating of the movement.

So my question: How do we come to agreement on whether or not the Cessationist has treated the alleged work of the moderates fairly -- especially given your ambivalence toward anyone's ability to measure whether the Continualist camp is mostly-orthodox or mostly-unorthodox?

---

First I'd point back to my answer to your last question which I think reasonably addresses the "ambivalence" and "measuring" you're talking about; and point out that your use of "Continualist camp" here, but "Charismatic Movement" elsewhere, is confusing the categories. Those categories aren't interchangeable. 

There is also a difference between the "cautious continualist" response to the excesses of the charismatic movement and the "open but cautious" position on the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. I would never encourage someone to be simply "open but cautious" about earnestly desiring gifts for the building up of the church, but to go all out and pursue radical intimacy with God, maturity in love, and to ask Him persistently for spiritual gifts and a heart of compassion that truly builds others up in Christ and advances the Gospel of the Kingdom. This is important, because much of what you guys interpret as indifference to charismatic excesses in the conservative continualist camp is really not that at all.

You'll find people that are passionate about worshiping,  seeking, pursuing, and knowing the Lord and how He speaks and heals today by the power of the Spirit. As I've thought about it, something stands out to me. I don't know of any person who while they were passionately pursuing the Lord, learning about the gifts of the Spirit, and growing in Him in this way, had at the same time, a demanding itch that someone patrol the excesses of the charismatic movement. You do however have people like me with backgrounds that make them more prone to struggle naturally with fearful and harsh skepticism--so though there is discernment, there is also a needed humble openness that doesn't necessarily come built in with instant maturity or the black and white controls that accommodate scared people. This openness is what Phil Johnson has called "willful gullibility" and what makes it hard for cessationists not to think that if they're open to any of it, then they're automatically open to all of it.  In fact, after watching the Strange Fire conference live, the overall message I kept hearing was, "We are afraid, so we want you to be afraid too."

So my first reaction is to say that we probably can't come to agreement (as much as I'd like to). Agreement won't happen primarily because what we have at play here, which serves as the basis for pretty much all conflict, is competing values. We both value something biblical and "right" in this conversation that the other person doesn't value to the degree that we'd like for them to. And these competing values have obviously played in to our use of Scripture as well during this exchange. 

So here we are.  We strongly want the other to see it our way, to honor our perspective with the amount of careful attention we feel it deserves. Yet neither of us it seems, has the capacity to demonstrate a priority to really understanding one another. We simply want to be heard, not to hear.  I know it can seem sometimes like we're puffing out our chests in the locker room, but I really think both of us are beyond wanting to just be right. We are both convinced of our positions. We're both fighting for something we really believe is the truth. And in my opinion, we are both right, and we are both wrong. 

I think for the most part that it's unfortunate that this is what you have taken away from those 5 suggestions. What it says to me Frank is that you don't care about the suggestions in my answer to Q5, the ones that if you seriously considered,  might significantly challenge your perspective and understanding of the issues--perhaps in ways you'd eventually be very thankful for. Yet, on the other hand, I do understand why--because your values, what you have pressing on your heart and perspective right now still speak louder to you than the other things I've written...and there's nothing I can do to control or change that. It is for the most part what I expected. However, I do hope in a minute I can demonstrate more understanding and acceptance of your position.  

I can't deny, however, that coming to full agreement on "whether the cessationist has treated the alleged moderating work of the movement fairly" would definitely involve you giving more value and fair consideration to the Q5 suggestions as well as other things I've written. That is, after all, what you're asking us to do as well. You are asking us to openly consider the arguments, read the book, and consider whether or not we are treating the concerns raised by Strange Fire with honesty, fairness, and seriousness. Essentially what I understand you communicating to me is this:

Note: Word limit ends here

"Bryan and other continualists, the fact that Michael Brown fraternized with Benny Hinn speaks louder. In fact it speaks volumes. What I value, what I and cessationists have been talking about throughout this debate, what we think is most important and that you and your one tent camp of orthodox continualists should take more seriously, frankly, is way more important and larger an issue than you are giving us credit for. Here's an example of what we're talking about right in front of you and even it gets brushed off...leaving you guys way less than credible. That, is in our opinion, evidence that we don't have a broad enough brush to paint you guys with, and more pressing, frankly, than anything you'd like for us to take more seriously. I mean, how can we take you seriously? It's simply ridiculous and sad for you guys to demand we jump through continualist theological hoops and criticisms before you'd allow us the biblical responsibility to call out widespread destructive error (what you're not taking responsibility for), and yet pitifully and ironically at the same time mingle indiscriminately with false teachers and false prophets. You guys are all about the "command" to earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but what about the commands to refute false teachers? Instead, you are giving them a platform while trying to undermine ours. Makes no sense. That's why we say you've a massive discernment problem."

Is that anywhere close to understanding what you've been saying?

If you are one of the five continuationists or charismatics reading this, I'd like for you to seriously consider what I am about to say. I've been harsh with Frank and the hard cessationist position and expression, though to be fair, Frank himself is not the hardest cessationist out there.  I thought most of Strange Fire was heart-grieving and that John Macarthur and friends said things that were horrible and pastorally irresponsible--and that they did so from the false doctrine of cessationism and a religious spirit that they confuse with love and discernment. You can see I've intentionally prioritized communicating that in my other posts. But to quote or paraphrase Douglas Wilson on the matter, "They didn't have the Strange Fire conference for nothing." And of course, most of you get that.

One of their most sustained points has been that while we seem hesitant to judge and discern our own camp, we are swift to discern and cast our stones at John Macarthur and Strange Fire. I think there are some reasonable explanations for some of that alleged double standard, but I also think they are right. Put yourself in their shoes. If you are an ex-cessationist, think about how difficult it was or perhaps still is, to transition. Think about the individual struggle you had with that paradigm shift and then consider how unreasonable it is to suggest that same shift (theological and practical) should happen corporately to Macarthur and friends before we'd accept their rebuke and correction. Maybe what we have to say to them is falling on deaf ears because we too have not listened.

Think about it. If what we are claiming about the present activity of the Holy Spirit is indeed true and beautiful, and worthy of being explored, why would we not want to honor that work and protect it with integrity, discernment, and love? Wouldn't we want to take I Timothy 4:1 and other warnings more seriously? Yet there is an obvious confusing overlap in our associations that I have to say can't be ignored. It's confusing to many in the continualist camp and the charismatic camp--imagine what it says to cessationists outside our camp who definitely won't check their brain at the door and accept the testimony of every "inside man" who wants to exonerate charlatans in hopes of alleviating the cessationists' concerns. It's true cessationists overplay the guilty by association card and reject many genuine manifestations of the Spirit and should consider strange things that've happened in historical revivals. It's true they draw the line in places that we wouldn't. It's true that this continues to be a very Biblically nuanced debate that may never resolve.

But why would we unwisely put unnecessary stumbling blocks in the path of others and cessationists that make it harder for them to take us seriously?

I think I'm guilty of it myself, but I want to speak specifically to Michael Brown since Frank used him as an example in this question. I've read Frank Viola's response to this (which has something good to offer including Macarthur's appearance on TBN), but am unpersuaded still that your decision to "partner" with Hinn or use his platform can be seen as wise or helpful or that should escape our critical gaze because you went in with the best of motives and redemptive purpose.  

I mean, come on, if we can suggest that John Macarthur and friends fit the biblical shoe of the Pharisee better than anyone else, certainly we can agree that Benny Hinn fits the biblical shoe of the false teacher and prophet better than anyone else. Of course you might say, "Well then if we can share the platform with John Macarthur with a view to reaching a larger audience with the truth though not endorsing his specific views, then why not Benny Hinn?" To which I'd reply: It obviously becomes very important how we discern who is a false teacher or prophet and how we think we are responsible to handle them Biblically. And the point of the Strange Fire conference, that you illustrated so well by your attempt at a redeeming sort of appearance with Benny Hinn, was that we continuationists and charismatics seem to be losing our ability or even willingness to call out anyone---that built in to our fabric is the growing inability to discern and willingness to discriminate and call a spade a spade. But when it comes to calling Macarthur out, well, we've no reservations. Put yourself in Macarthur's shoes and see if the same stumbling blocks we present don't trip you up.

One last thing and I'll wrap this up. As I've said, though my actual experience with the gifts and charismatic church life has been healthy, I noticed this "overlap" in charismatic/continualist associations early on.  Before my wife and I were married, she went with a group to IHOP in Kansas City for the New Year's One Thing conference. I was young in my charismatic journey and had very little knowledge about IHOP at the time and as I've alluded to before--I would occasionally pull back in to my self-protective heart helmet mode. Well, you can imagine when I came across Andrew Strom's documentary on Youtube about how the Kundalini Spirit was invading the church and he included IHOP and others in with his critique, I became very fearful and concerned. I did some "guilty by association" logic that literally made me freak out. In fact when she got back in to town, I actually made it a point to sit down with her to watch John Macarthur videos on discernment:) I look back at that time now and realize how my fear led me to control her though I was insistent my motives were mixed with something good as well.

No matter what you make of Andrew Strom's documentary or Randy Clark's response to his documentary, the reality is that "The Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons."--I Timothy 4:1 

How will we discern? Cessationism and fearful phariseesm doesn't protect us, but neither does indiscriminate overlapping associations and willful gullibility.  

So all that to say....Frank, I don't know how we can come to full agreement other than to say that you and cessationists are both right and wrong, just like I think we are right and wrong. You've treated our work fairly and unfairly as we have you guys--based on the competing values each side has. I've spent much time here trying to demonstrate I understand your side. But I will never deny that you guys have also, with Strange Fire ( The Half Truth Matters conference sponsored by Grace and Fear To You), created stumbling blocks for yourselves, the continuationist , and charismatic that I think you're going to have to address more honestly before you have more ears open up.

Q10 for Bryan: Counting noses

Bryan, in your answer to Q#4, you made the sort of statement every advocate for Charismatic Gifts makes: you really have no idea how to determine how many in your camp are orthodox and how many are unorthodox.  However, it seems to me that all of you also make a basic assumption: of course the people you represent are overwhelmingly orthodox.  That assumption underlies all of the arguments in favor of the continuation of gifts.

How should the Cessationist approach that assumption, given that you have plainly said that there's no way to verify it?

---

First, understand there's a huge accounting difference between asking us to verify how many in the entire charismatic movement are in healthy practice, as opposed to just asking us to verify how many in our local church or network of churches are in healthy practice. Why is our initial response to that kind of accounting hard to understand? Even you said, "I don't think there's any kind of growing passion or acceptance of continuationism in 'respected scholars and pastors' which is quantifiable." Yet it's obvious the reformed charismatic movement is growing rapidly. And the increasing numbers of those pastors and sheep that you say can't be quantified would be included in the accounting you are asking us to take responsibility for as they seek to practice the gifts in a healthy way.  

Second, it's not an assumption that those we represent locally are in healthy practice, it's observation and experience with our own local congregations, each with their own shepherding strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, the reality of the continuation of the gifts is not contingent on perfect orthodoxy or practice, so you shouldn't find us arguing for continuation based on our own healthy functioning. The Holy Spirit gave gifts to both the Corinthian church and the Galatian church, each with their own doctrinal and personal problems. The continuation of the manifestations of the Spirit are still distributed according to His will (Hebrews 2:4;I Cor.12:11). He obviously can choose to give and take away, for many reasons which could include unsound teaching that's crept in to the church, but scripture seems to point to Him still giving these gifts of Himself in the midst of abuse and doctrinal issues.        

As far as I know, you'd probably be welcome to go and observe different congregations Frank. I think what you'll find in my circles and many continuationist churches is many people who are coming from the "open but cautious" camp to a position of actually wanting to relate more personally with the Holy Spirit, learn about how God still speaks and heals, and what it means to obey Paul's command (or exhortation if you like) to pursue love and desire the gifts with a pure motive for building up others. Though what you'd find might be immature in development, you'd find congregations that are the least likely to be given over to abuses -- simply because of where they're coming from. However, that being said, your next questions will give me opportunity to go in to more detail about the concerns I've had even in my own congregations who I'd still consider to be healthy.

How should the cessationist approach this "assumption"?

1. Realize it's not an assumption, we've said that it's simply more reasonable for us to say we can verify what's going on in our own congregations not what is happening everywhere. Perhaps also consider the unreasonableness of assuming that if someone decides that they're going to obey Paul's command to pursue love and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, that they simultaneously are signing up to have to defend the entire charismatic movement.

2. Perhaps go and observe for yourself what healthy practice looks like and how that healthy practice is standardized, shepherded, and enforced in local continuationist congregations. Realize that more corporate standardization and pleas for a more global charismatic reformation have been issued by charismatic leaders. 

Though I haven't read it, you made me aware of Lee Grady's book which looks to be something that conservative continuationists and others in my circles should consider, since he's experienced more of the extremes, as has Craig Keener, whose response to Strange Fire may be very helpful for you and those readers who want more answers to abuses and the worst sides of the charismatic movement that it appears I'm inadequate to deal with in a more helpful way. I think this book, as well as others, should be an encouragement to cessationists that many of the issues raised by Strange Fire are being addressed and called to reformation on a large scale.

3. Consider exploring and taking more seriously why it is that you feel more called or convicted to patrol and control spiritual gifts (or to command someone patrol spiritual gifts) than you do to obey the command to covet earnestly and pursue spiritual gifts.  

J.P. Moreland's book Kingdom Triangle and his support of Lee Grady's book on charismatic reformation should release that pressure valve by realizing that there are those who are policing our camp with convincing scholarship. Now, Frank and other cessationists, why not sincerely listen to what J.P. Moreland and others have to say to the cessationist camp and start exploring your end more honestly?                     

Q9 for Bryan: Q3 revisited - how to respond?

In my Q#3 to you, Bryan, I take the blame for being too vague.  Let’s assume that the Apostolic Gifts are necessary for the life of the church; therefore, let’s then posit that all cessationists are unorthodox. It’s obvious to me what sort of response is warranted for them based on the responses to the Strange Fire Conference.

My Q#3 was in fact regarding what to do about those who, on paper, believe what you believe about the Apostolic Gifts but are not orthodox due to abuses and excesses (you have mentioned Mike Murdock; I am sure there must be others).

Let assume that 70% of all Charismatic globally are orthodox and of good faith, but that 30% of them are of a stripe like Murdock and his cohorts.  What should the 70% do about the 30% who are, frankly, causing division in the body of Christ through false teaching? 

---

May I re-frame your question this way so that I've an actual figure to go by?:

Say we have only 1,000 teachers/leaders/pastors who on paper believe the same thing about the miraculous gifts. We got together and agreed across the board on all our terms and standards of orthodoxy with the gospel and practice of miraculous gifts within the church and conducted on-site surveys on those 1000 teachers to see how they measured up against the standard. We then got the results back which revealed that 700 of them were orthodox and of good faith with the standardization put in place, but 300 of them were deemed false teachers of a stripe like Mike Murdock and are currently causing division within the body. 

What do the 700 orthodox do?

First I'd say we'd need to stay calm and controlled and keep ourselves away from guns, explosives, Saran wrap, and imprecatory Psalms (at least at first). 

Scripture exhorts us who are leaders/elders in the church to "hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)

Since we know we're dealing with Mike Murdock types, we know that we're dealing with primary issues (especially the gospel), not secondary ones. 

We protect the sheep entrusted to our care and shoot the wolves closest to us. We do this as best we can with our own platform and sphere of influence, dealing first with any problems in our own local assembly and network of churches, and then move outward. The more public the false teacher and teaching, the more public the confrontation and exposure.   

As for more of a principled process: 

--We pray for them. 
--We ask our Father for wisdom. 
--We watch our own life and doctrine closely. 
--We plead with them privately and publicly to repent.
--We publicly confront them and censure them.


I understand Frank that in your thinking you are being gracious with that figure, that in your mind it's more like 70% quacks who make headlines and 30% orthodox who smoke pipes and stroke their beards while reading Piper and Grudem. Of course, that number of orthodox would be different if you guys were actually more orthodox:) But I get that we conservatives make up a small percentage of the movement, if we can be considered inside the movement at all. 

I think it's important to note here that Mike Murdock's views on or practice with the gifts of the Spirit (which I know nothing of) have nothing to do with why I find him repulsive and to be a false teacher, and never have. I would feel the same way about him and those like him if on paper they all had a high view of the sovereignty of God but still preached a false gospel and aired late night TV $1000 seed garbage.

There is a difference between false teaching/preaching a different gospel and misuse/abuse or perceived misuse of the miraculous gifts, but since you didn't make that distinction in your question, but rather implied they were one in the same, I chose to answer the question as you asked and make the clarification here.    

What clearly emerges out of this question is our differing perspectives on hearing God and what we believe to be the true nature of the New Testament gift of prophecy---and how those differing perspectives translate into what we'd be willing to consider excessive abuse and false teaching...and subsequently, how we think things should be standardized.  
    

  

  

Q8 for Bryan: A third question about abuses

I promise this will be my last question about abuses, but it will run a little long. :-)

Elsewhere in your answers, you made it clear that you think abuses aren’t really that important.  That’s an odd position for a guy who, as we discussed over lunch, thinks that the natural tendency of Reformed believers is to be either legalists or spiritually-powerless against their own sins.  That is: you can see that the gift of discernment has its own pitfalls, but you are somehow squeamish regarding the obvious pitfalls of Charismatic practices.

Some churches claim to be Bible-believing churches, but the way they read the Bible frankly causes them to do all manner of abusive things, including the emotional and personal abuse of believers and unbelievers alike.

Some churches claim to use the signs of the church as Christ commanded them — that is, Baptism and the Lord’s Table.  However, the way they use them (for example, rebaptizing people over and over, or including both believer and unbelievers at the eucharist) abuses both the sign and the people who are receiving them by deceiving them about what they are doing.  It puts people spiritually in harm’s way.

It’s clear, it seems to me, that every good and Godly thing can be abused, and there are consequences to doing so.  Why would the Spiritual Gifts be any different?

---

I definitely agree with you that every good and Godly thing can be abused, and that the spiritual gifts are not excluded. In terms of potential for abuse, they are no different. I wouldn't be writing all of this if I thought abuses weren't important. Of course, that's why you're asking "Why the pattern of easily pointing out the pitfalls of reformed discernment yet remaining hesitant to answer concisely about the pitfalls of charismatic practices?" 

My simple answer to that question: I've more experience with the weaknesses and abuses on the Reformed side. I'm just more familiar with what it's like to operate out of a reformed cessationist paradigm and how it influences thinking on this issue...I think. Conversely, I've very little actual exposure to abuses on the charismatic side. 

Perhaps this story will help. Go here If you've time to read a little more of the backdrop to my response to this question. I couldn't include it here because of word count, however, my points below correlate with what I've written there. 

To respond to your wording of my view being that "the natural tendency of Reformed believers is to be either legalists or spiritually-powerless against their own sins", I'd like to say three things.

1. I understand my story in living out the Christian life within a Reformed cessationist paradigm is unique. I don't automatically project it on anyone else nor do I think John Macarthur would ever endorse any of the things I've done in the name of discernment or his name, especially while living a double life. 

Furthermore, some of the godliest, faithful, and most loving men I've known are cessationists.
   
In my limited understanding of things, the gifts of the Spirit stem from an intimate relationship with God, a way of relating to Him that I think includes the confidence that God still speaks individually to His children just as he has throughout biblical history. I personally think intimacy with God cannot be nurtured if one is in any state of paralyzing uncertainty of whether or not he or she is His child or if they're convinced He's mostly resistant or even reluctant to communicate with them normally on a very personal level. So, I think it's worth exploring how issues around identity (including but not limited to assurance of salvation) and intimate friendship with God play in to and affect the reformed cessationist view and experience overall.     

2. There may be someone reading this whose experience in the Reformed cessationist paradigm has been exactly opposite. I get that. But I think, if I may use a broad brush, the very things which are foundational to all of the Christian life in the Spirit --Identity as a son or daughter & Intimate friendship with God--are two things at least in my experience, tended to be weaknesses in the reformed cessationist camp. Of course I'm in no way saying cessationists don't have a rich relationship with God. There are many cessationists who walk more intimately with God and look more like Him than I do, many that I can learn much from.  

To address my own tendency to legalistic relating--I would like to start asking myself as I go through my day--"Father, am I engaging with you and your purposes right now from a place of intimate companionship or intimidated compliance?" For me this can reveal if I'm working to please God (outside relationship) or walking with God to advance His Kingdom. Whether it's prophesying or expository preaching, casting out demons or holding strange fire conferences, I think the tendency for all of us is to do things outside of intimate relationship our Father and without a view to do His will by the power of the Spirit of God.      

Also it may be good to say something here about Christlikeness and your comment that I've badly misread the analogy of being like Christ and am attempting to make you guys feel impoverished with my views of what it means to imitate Christ and carry out His ministry. I think the main thing I seek to imitate or should seek to imitate as one who is in Christ, is Christ's intimacy with the Father. All of His authority and power flowed from His relationship with His Father, and His character and ministry were lived out in the Power of the Holy Spirit. How should we be different?  

Those who say, "Lord Lord, did we not do this and do that..." are obviously presenting these works to Jesus as the basis for why they should be accepted. They neither knew God nor were known by God. There's obviously a form of power there that has nothing to do with Identity and Intimacy (being known by God). It's a sober warning for everyone, not just charismatics. But the charismatics who I know-- love Christ, want to know Christ,want to love like Christ and make Him known. They seek to walk intimately with the Father, and seek to carry out His will in their daily lives by the power of the Holy Spirit. To suggest that since we believe we should carry on those works of Jesus mentioned in that passage necessarily puts us specifically at a greater risk of being the very group he's talking about is a misguided application of that passage.       

3. Because of my own journey, because of the testimony and teaching of scripture, and because of my greater familiarity with what living in the Reformed paradigm generally is like, even if I am wrong on some of what I've written here, I am persuaded that cessationists have far more to learn from their Continuationist and Charismatic brothers than they do to criticize and condemn.

That's why I think the pitfalls of the cessationist camp are on my front burner. I really do feel like they've, as in the Strange Fire conference, took extreme steps in cutting themselves off from some of the very men and things that could strengthen their walk with the Lord and the churches they lead. Sadly, they've attempted to extinguish them.     

Q7 for Bryan: More about Abuses

I thought your response to Q2 did 2 things: (1) it ignored your own argument in Q1, and (2) it blamed the Cessationist as somehow intransigent for asking a pretty basic question about an allegedly-necessary attribute of the church — which is, “how can I know if we are doing it right?”


In 1 Cor 14, Paul says, “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets,” by which he means that somehow there is a right and necessary constraint of these manifestations to therefore keep good order and edify the church.  (He explains why in 1 Cor 14:6-15)  If Paul has commanded that there be spiritual gifts used in the church, he demanded they be used in a proper way.  That’s what I mean when I ask about spiritual abuses.
What am I not understanding when I see a disconnect between Paul's approach and yours -- which seems to say that anything goes?

---

No matter how I clarify, there will be cessationists who after reading this post will come away saying something like, "See..see...they refuse to be held to account, they're crying foul at the slightest objection and are demanding to be able to do whatever they want without us even raising an eyebrow." But if that's what you take away, you're missing the point. But as I've already stated in my introduction: 

"Who is it, really, that’s crying foul? This hard cessationist camp and expression are like the abusive bullying husband who pushes his wife’s buttons and pushes her buttons and pushes her buttons, waiting until she finally explodes and shows him some nice dark colors and teeth, so he can then punish her for it and demand she not have any buttons to push."   

Cessationists aren't intransigent for asking the basic question, "how can I know we are doing it right?"--if that's indeed what they are sincerely asking. But that's not what I've heard you or cessationists ask or say--as if they were earnestly seeking spiritual gifts and wondering if they are doing it according to Paul's instructions, which you are right, are instructions for those who ARE obeying or sincerely want to obey his other commands to pursue love and earnestly desire gifts. It's not intended for those who are acting like self-justifying disobedient naysayers with a knack for deflecting, to use against those who've actually got skin in the game and are taking the risks.   

From the beginning there has been these condescending demands that we provide better answers for cessationist questions concerning abuse, as if you guys really do assume God views you and your position on this as superior and has you here as the referees to blow the whistle on everyone else and tally up who's met your requirements and who hasn't, who's paid their dues with the answers you want and who hasn't. And as I've stated elsewhere, as an ex-Macarthurite I know what it’s like to know I’m going to be accused of some form of Phariseeism and to pre-defend myself by claiming to be just a martyr for the truth, so it has been no surprise to see that kind of talk among you guys play out as usual.

What I have heard you "ask" is, "We believe what you're practicing is demonic clairvoyance and/or cheap counterfeits and that it's probable you are not even a part of the body of Christ, but, for the sake of argument, I'll concede the gifts are for today--so...given that gracious concession, can you show me the real deal which only looks like [fill in the blank] and how you and I can both know that YOU are doing it right?"

The disconnect is not because I'm an anything goes guy (far from it), the disconnect is because I simply refuse to play that game...I won't play into this inflated fantasy of y'all's that you deserve better answers than what you've been getting simply because you are who you are as opposed to us question marks. You've attributed genuine acts of the Holy Spirit to Satan while kicking your heels. You don't get a pass on your own blasphemy because you're confident you're confronting blasphemy or because you've written fifty commentaries. 

If this means I'm accused of not considering abuses to be a big deal, then so be it. That's simply not true. But I can't help you much there as long as you've a higher tolerance for your own unbelief and mockery than my inability or unwillingness to account for what everyone who claims to be charismatic, does with the gifts. 

Are there abuses? Yep. Abuses/misuses in all sizes...extra small to 5x, tall to venti. Yet, those who sincerely begin to grow in their gifts discover the pitfalls and how to avoid the various misuses and abuses. And there is one book that comes to mind, devoted specifically to the gift of prophecy, if you're interested in a starting place for learning how healthy practice can be encouraged and maintained within a specific body.

But as it is, you guys are obviously not seeking to understand as someone who really wants to know how you can know you are doing it right, but as someone who is asking us to supply the very ammunition that you aim to shoot us with. You're coming at this more like a tax collector who doesn't pay his own taxes. That's why I'd agree that cessationists are being hypocritically intransigent.

Q06 for Bryan: How can I obey that command?

In Q1, you said plainly that you can’t imagine any other answer than that the Apostolic Gifts are necessary for the life of the church.  I can imagine 2 other answers immediately: (1) They are not necessary, but they are useful for [insert list here], and (2) They are not necessary, but they have helped me personally grow closer to God.

Your response is that the Apostolic Gifts are necessary because they are commanded.  I am in favor of carrying out the commands of God.  For example, God gives us the command to be wise, and gives us the book of Proverbs to understand what wisdom looks like.  God commands us to be chaste and gives us both the Law and the implications of the Gospel to explain what sexual purity looks like (for example, Eph 5, 1 Cor 5-6-7, Rom 1, Lev 18).

Even though Carson rejects your view that Paul is issuing a command in 1 Cor 14, let’s assume it is a command.  Where do the implications of this command get worked out in either the OT or the NT? Asked another way, how will I know that I am obeying God in the use of the so-called Spiritual Gifts?

---

I'd like to answer your question in three parts: One,address briefly whether or not Paul is issuing a command...I'd rather not just assume it. Two, give a few reasons why the gifts are necessary. Three, provide some thoughts on how to obey this command.

Is Paul issuing a command? 

For sure I did say that I can't imagine why Paul would command us (really the Holy Spirit through Paul) to earnestly desire certain gifts for the building up of the church, if they weren't necessary. The language and repetition used is strong, it's hard to imagine Paul's original readers having a discussion on whether or not earnestly desiring prophecy is necessary for the building up of the body of Christ after Paul repeated himself three times to earnestly desire the gifts and specifically that gift. If it isn't a command, what kind of strong exhortation is it? Certainly what Paul said (whether command or optional but weighty exhortation) warrants a different response than trying to dismiss what he did exhort us to do with appeals to... what?... Benny Hinn? Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder who's really empowering Benny Hinn-- the continuationists who you say are giving him incidental credibility simply because of what they believe or hard cessationists who with all their boasting about wisdom, discernment and Sola Scriptura, when it comes to this text would rather let Benny Hinn speak louder than the Holy Spirit and Paul, and then unabashedly call pretty much everything the Holy Spirit does that makes them uncomfortable, a demonic counterfeit.         

The argument that earnestly desiring the gifts is a command is not the only reason I'd give for concluding that the gifts are necessary (more on this in a minute).  However, I think it's clear that we are commanded. Sam Storms has a post on this worth reading before you continue to read here. Taking your word for it, as far as D.A. Carson's view that earnestly desiring gifts isn't commanded, I don't know what to say except that I respectfully disagree. Sorry D.A., I like your accent and all, but I'm just a concrete floor guy from Arkansas who spent some time in Recovery and hasn't read your book, but even I know your conclusion, at least on the surface level, isn't exactly what should be called exegetical sobriety. Given his theological pedigree, that statement probably is more brass than brain, but perhaps a few observations below can prove otherwise, even if just a little. 

If Paul wanted to clarify that these things he was writing weren't clear commands of the Lord in his mind, he could have done so with language like he employed in I Corinthians 7:6,12, 25. Instead, in I Corinthians 14:37 he chooses to make it clear that the things he is writing are a command of the Lord just before his last exhortation of three to earnestly desire to prophesy and clear imperative to not forbid speaking in tongues.  If any of his exhortations in this context were not commands and could be viewed and relegated to mere-good-actions-if-you-want-to, it would not be consistent with the overall force of the passage or with his pattern of carefully clarifying what is or isn't a command from the Lord if indeed it were questionable. Furthermore, what do we think Paul personally expected of those who read his letter or heard it?

In addition, Pursue Love seems to be a pretty clear command. Would you argue that it isn't?  So what does a suitor do if he earnestly desires a young woman and the gift (grace) of marriage? Does he not pursue her and marriage? Does he not pray for her? Does he not give her some serious attention? Does he not annoyingly ask, seek, and knock persistently if he needs to? Does he wait to pursue the woman and marriage until he's mature in love, or does it take the woman and marriage to mature him? Oh I'm trailing off, but look, the point is that pursue love and earnestly desire go together in thought in this passage, it seems silly to argue and conclude that it says Pursue Love, not necessarily Pursue the gifts, therefore, earnestly desire is not really a command on the same level. Sounds a little stretchy sketchy. After all,what do we call a guy who eagerly desires a woman, but never really gets around to pursuing her? 

A few reasons why the gifts are necessary for the life of the church:

1. D.A. Carson does however view the perfect and face to face  in I Corinthians 13: 10-12 to be the return of Christ, right? The question I have for those that will concede that this passage refers to the time when the church will see Christ face to face and that that is when the gifts will cease, is, what is it then about Christ's return that will render these gifts useless? In other words, what purpose and function are these gifts serving and providing that only seeing Christ face to face will put an end to? I submit to you that these gifts purpose and essential function are to increasingly (the more we build up) manifest the Presence of Jesus in and through the church (The Body of Christ) by the Spirit to continue to advance the already but not yet Kingdom of God over against the Kingdom of Darkness. And this involves all the gifts the Holy Spirit sovereignly chooses to give.  

2.  The gifts are necessary in order to keep us interdependent and together dependent on the Holy Spirit to carry out our mission as the Body of Christ--mainly to re-present the ministry of Christ and advance His Kingdom. No one person has them all. The gifts are essential in discipleship and an essential component of manifesting the Kingdom of God. The point of Paul's body metaphor (for that matter all of I Corinthians 12) doesn't quite make sense if the gifts aren't necessary for the life of the Church. It would be like saying you're okay that the Body of Christ has everything but its feet or arms, pinky toe, or maybe even just a head. But I think a good look at the state of the overly institutional expression of the church reveals there needs to be a recovery of what it looks like for Christ to be Head of His church and for each member to come with something to give (manifestation for the common good; building up; ministry) rather than to just consume one man's teaching gift. Our maturity in Christ and maturity in love are dependent on it (Ephesians 4:1-16). That's a big controversial convo in itself but still in my opinion points to the necessity of all the gifts, especially in the mind of Paul. 

3. The gifts are necessary for engaging in spiritual warfare. There is too much on this point to discuss here considering I'm way over my word limit, but the reality is that we have a defeated yet still formidable and crafty enemy. Discovering how the gifts serve an essential/necessary function in advancing the Kingdom of God over the Kingdom of Darkness should be enough in itself to convince anyone of the necessity of the gifts. To neglect to seriously consider the vast practical evidence for this is unwise.

So, your question: How do you obey this command and how do you know that you are obeying God in the use of the so-called Spiritual Gifts? 

The specific command we are discussing is I Corinthians 14:1--"Pursue love and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy."

1. To pursue love and eagerly desire obviously involves the emotions and actions. I guess you could either argue that since these involve the emotions and emotions can't be commanded, then these can't be commands. Or, you could consider John Piper's writings on Christian Hedonism which in essence teach that in the Bible the pursuit of pleasure or happiness and pursuit of God aren't at odds with one another...namely because scripture commands us to be happy in God. That is, God can command emotions and require things of us that we can't turn on and off like a faucet, and that built in to the priority of simple obedience to God is obedience to the commands in scripture for us to find our Joy and happiness in Him--that is, heart realities rather than mere actions that we feel we have very little if any control over. In fact, Piper wrote a book called, "When I Don't Desire God: How to Fight for Joy" for those of us who want our joy to be in God but still in our day to day find more comfort in a cup of coffee.  I could see him writing a sequel, "When I Don't Desire Spiritual Gifts: How to Pursue Love, Prophecy and Occasionally Tongues ". So, all of that to say, I think there are both inward and outward evidences that indicate you're being obedient to the Spirit's command here...and certainly whether or not we are pursuing love and earnestly seeking these gifts can be evidenced both in passion and practice.

2. I've already mentioned a few things practically in a previous post so I won't repeat them here. Ultimately, I think obedience to this command encompasses believing, desiring, asking, seeking, knocking, and trusting, as a son. In our first posts on this blog, I mentioned the importance of identity and our unity as sons (Romans 8:14-16, Galatians 4:5-6). The reason our identity as sons is crucial is because it gets to the heart of our confidence in the security of our intimate relationship with the Father and trust in His goodness. No other passage in Scripture in my opinion best describes where our heart should be on this issue than all of Luke 11.

I can't go in to all of it, but the portion that strikes me as most applicable to what we're discussing here is: (italics and bold all mine) "What Father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" Notice, the son asks for things that nourish his body...he's hungry. What father (though we're evil) would then give him something that would strike and poison him? What is significant is that one chapter before this passage, you read Jesus say to the Seventy-Two, "Behold I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you."

 I think the idea the passage is communicating to us is that if we, His sons, ask our Heavenly Father persistently for something or gifts that are designed to be nourishing (namely the gift of the Holy Spirit here), we can trust His heart and that He surely won't give us something hurtful, evil, or demonic. He's not going to give us the very opposite of what we are asking for. In fact, that would be impossible for Him to do so, because of who He is, and whose we are.

At the heart of earnestly desiring spiritual gifts (manifestations of the Spirit Himself) is childlike trust in our Heavenly Father, that when we ask for gifts that nourish/build up the Body of Christ, he for sure won't give us things that are harmful. So we can ask, seek, and knock (earnestly desire) without fear. We can put our confidence in the goodness of the Father rather than the power of the enemy to deceive us, after all, we too have been given authority in Christ to tread on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy anyways. 

It may be hard to believe, but perhaps there is, ironically, much more to submitting to the Lordship of Christ and true discipleship than even the Macarthur camp is comfortable accepting, but who is rather, in this case, strangely at peace with mocking and denying.  

---

Endnote from Frank: one of the premises/agreements Bryan and I made when we started this exchange is that there was a word count limit for these posts -- 750 words.