28 July 2006

"Tongues" across the water: response to Adrian, part two

by Dan Phillips

This is part two of what was a projected three-part series begun here. Turns out it's going to be four, God willing. Adrian's thoughts and feelings are widely-shared, and he expresses them vigorously, so he's worth a solid interaction. I hope we can have some fun, I certainly am committed to keeping it friendly, but still we should have a contentful interaction. I'm sure when Adrian's tanned, rested, and feeling tip-top as I pray he will, I'll be in for a well-deserved and well-dished drubbing.

Or he'll try. < /tough-talk blustering bluff >

If you haven't read the first part, please start there, for truly Phillipses do not love to chew their cabbage twice.

Having responded to what I think is the heart, not only of Adrian's post, but of modern Charismaticism, I now move on to some of the specifics. In this post, I'll focus on the nature of evidence, and the burden of proof. Now back to Adrian Warnock.

A word about that man. You can learn more of him in the distant Tim Challies' interview, and you can even hear him preach. (Warning: he kinda preaches like a Charismatic. Also, I'm convinced that anything anyone says in a British accent automatically sounds 25% smarter -- so he's definitely got that going for him. Envious? Me? Never! That's why you never see any daft and balmy [correction: barmy (thanks, Libbie!)] Britishisms in my writing. It's sad that Adrian's so darned homely, too, poor man. We all have our crosses to bear.)

I'll say this clearly as I can. Adrian and I are both public men. My stuff has been dissected and shredded at atheist message boards, in charismatic blogs, and probably in a hundred other places. I'm sure it's the same for Adrian. Our public words are open for public discussion and debate and analysis.

I mean to continue to look unsparingly at what Adrian wrote. I'd be very saddened, however, if anyone misinterpreted my, erm, spirited disagreement with Adrian's words on this one topic, and this one specific position he has adopted, to translate to general overall disagreement, or specific animosity for him as a brother in Christ. I honestly have no doubt that, in personal conversation, we'd hit it off well, and that we'd find a host of shared truths we'd gladly proclaim and defend shoulder to shoulder.

Now, without further eloquence....

The Beloved Physician refers to "the notion [I'd say "observation" or "well-known fact"] that modern tongues are always 'gibberish,'" which he styles my "bold accusation." This is a "bold accusation" I picked up from speaking with a linguist years ago on the subject, and from my awareness of several studies in which linguists analysed modern "tongues." They consistently found in them none of the characteristics of language, let alone a known language. the "tongue" speakers generally took sounds from their own language, and made nonsense combinations.

Now, it is quite striking to me that Dr. Warnock says this (emphases added):
There are in fact stories circulating of specific cases where modern tongues were understood by someone in the meeting as literal human languages. I have never witnessed this, but have certainly heard from those who have.
Now, as I argue very briefly here, the Bible only knows one kind of tongues (more on this, next post, DV). That kind is supernaturally-acquired human languages. Yet Dr. Warnock says he's never witnessed that kind of "tongues." And that doesn't bother him? How many "tongues" has he heard ? One? One thousand?

So, Adrian has never yet seen the only phenomenon the Bible knows of as the supernatural gift of tongues -- yet he'll suffer none to suggest that tongues are not for today. What then shall we conclude? That tongues are for today... but nobody's ever seen them?

Well, to be fair, Adrian says he's heard "stories" about manifestations of supernaturally-acquired human languages. And yes, there are always "stories." Tongues, Bigfoot, genuine prophecies, UFO's, Elvis. I myself heard a story of a guy growing his eyeball back at a Kathryn Kuhlmann meeting. A friend told me he'd heard about it, somewhere, he thought.

Someone has always talked to someone who overheard about a speaker who told the tale of a friend who once heard of a missionary who....

And this is all in stark contrast to Biblical supernatural events, which were right out in bold daylight, in front of God and everybody. Biblical miracles left unbelievers stunned, gob-smacked, and searching for explanations. Modern counterfeits have that same effect on their advocates.

To stick with Acts 2, alone: the consensus of those present was not, "What's wrong with Barney?", but "Hey -- how did that pinhead Barney ever learn Tagalog?"

More troubling to me, Adrian isn't concerned if the genuine, only-Biblical-"tongues"-there-is cannot be found anywhere. He'll settle for whatever anyone wants to call "tongues," I guess, because he suggests that
even if Dan isn’t wrong, it is quite possible that we are in a period of time when only the beginnings of supernatural gifts are currently being given. These things seem, in my experience, to come in waves, and somehow the outpouring of God's Spirit does not seem to be constant. There are “times of refreshing” (Acts 3:20). Couldn’t the tongues we often hear today be almost like precursors to those which are more recognisable linguistically? I have certainly heard some that sound to an English-speaker's ear more like human languages than others.
First, though Adrian has by his own testimony never experienced the only gift of tongues the Bible talks about, he bases a theory on his "experience." Since he has said he has had no experience of what I define as Biblical tongues, I'm unsure what "experience" he has as a basis for this theory.

Beyond that, I'll tell you, friend Adrian, and Dear Reader -- that whole statement just really worries me. It doesn't bother Adrian if modern "tongues" aren't like actual Biblical tongues. He comes up with this idea about waves or phases --- but he has no specific Biblical basis to it. It may be clever. It may be inventive. But he's just making it up. Aren't we not supposed to do that?

The citation of Acts 3:20 doesn't help. Read it in context. This is part of a call to the nation of Israel, still, to repent and believe in Jesus as Messiah. How could Peter possibly have in mind far-future sub-Biblical semi-supernatural events as sort of a warm-up game for the "real thing"? What possible sense would that make?

Think about it. Pentecost had just happened. Surely if ever there was "a period of time when only the beginnings of supernatural gifts" were in evidence, that was it. And at that time, healers healed dramatically and undeniably, people spoke languages they'd never learned. Tongues were a current and happening event.

And how long had it taken the real real thing to happen? How many generations of waves of Christian preparation did it take? How purified did the Christian recipients have to become? How long had these Christians sought tongues?

Well, of course, they had not sought tongues at all. There was no preparation, as they were all caught by surprise. The original recipients in Acts 2 had no faith in tongues. They had never asked for tongues. They had done no preparation, no seeking. Tongues just happened. And not in a vestigial way, not a "warm-up act" of gibberish -- it was the full-bore, legitimate, verifiable/falsifiable article itself.

Except on an emotional level, it is very hard for me to understand this willingness simply to make things up. Ponder anew: here is a movement which calls people to give over control to some putatively spiritual power, to let it have control over their minds and bodies. If some hapless soul points out that the result is nothing like the Bible, comes the response, "Oh, well, nevermind -- maybe it's a warm-up act!"

So one must ask: how long will the Charismatic movement be warming up, then? How long have how many people prayed how many prayers to receive the gift of tongues, without one well-documented success of Biblical proportions? One hundred years of trying. One hundred percent failure. Scores of theories invented to rationalize the failure. That shouldn't concern us?

This isn't the way I read the manual. John famously says, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).

Is it too much to ask a spirit whether Jesus has come in the flesh, if that spirit makes you feel good? What if you ask, and the spirit answers, "Maybe"? Shall we say that maybe this is just part of a cycle, a wave of spiritual renewal, and accept the spirit in the meanwhile? Perhaps, if we tarry and persist for another hundred years, it will eventually say "Probably"?

I spoke in tongues back in the seventies, I thought. But I kept studying my Bible. Studying the Bible eventually led me to be uncertain whether or not what I was doing was the same as what the Bible described. It felt good to me, it came out of love for the Lord. But if it wasn't what the Bible described, it wasn't real. If it wasn't real as judged by the Bible, I wanted no part of it. So I stopped until I could be sure. Eventually, I came to be sure. I never "spoke in tongues" again.

So in that connection, here's another puzzling thing my brother says:
I am still waiting for the cessationists to demonstrate from Scripture that all the miraculous gifts (with the exception of authoritative doctrinal revelation) have indeed stopped permanently and forever.
Well, why? What does it matter if we can "demonstrate" it "from Scripture"? We've already seen what happens when we do. An ironclad case can be (and has been) made from Scripture that tongues were always supernaturally acquired human languages. Confronted with that fact, and lacking any such occurrences today, Adrian says, "Oh, well. Maybe we're just kicking the football around before the real match starts!"

So one must ask, What is the standard of proof? If in this one readily-testable phenomenon the evidence simply don't matter, in the face of a willingness to "make it up" -- well then, what evidence could be agreed on as convincing?

Suppose the Bible had a verse that actually said, "After John dies, no more revelatory gifts!" Would that be good enough? But I can hear one saying, "Ah, but it doesn't say how long after John dies! 'A day is as a thousand years,' you know." And another, "I've never seen John's body... have you?" And on it could go. All of which minds me of the couplet:
A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.
Moving on, Adrian then says,
I have also not seen [cessationists] give good explanations regarding the experiences so many of us describe or the benefits that those who speak in tongues receive from them. If the cessationist is correct, then the charismatic is, by definition, either deluded or demonised!
My first, honest, non-sarcastic response to this confession was to wonder how many cessationist books Adrian has read, and which ones; and how many cessationists he's talked with. But never mind that for now.

The question is simply answered.

Suppose you say, "Oh, look! A cat!" And you point to a snake. So I go fetch a textbook that we both respect, and I read, "Cat: mammal, possessed of four legs, a tail, a head, lots of fur, and an insatiable appetite. Purrs when petted." Then I say, "That thing you're pointing at doesn't look anything like a cat. At. All."

What do you say? "Yeah, but maybe it's a furless, legless, reptilian cat who never purrs! Or maybe it's just warming up, and one day it will be a cat! You have to give me a good explanation of what it is, or I'll pick it up and call it a cat!"?

No, actually, I really don't have to. I've demonstrated that it isn't a cat. In so demonstrating, I have demonstrated that, if you do pick it up, you won't be picking up a cat. My work is done.

If, however, I keep looking through my nature guide, I'll find several things that are long and thin and wiggly. It might be a worm. It might be an eel. It might be a snake. What kind of snake, though? Maybe I can't identify the exact species of snake you're pointing at. But I know that there are various venomous vipers about, and that's reason enough to worry. I advise you that it's best not to pick it up until we're sure what it is.

Doesn't that make good sense?

But at any rate, even if you pick it up, and suffer no immediate harm, and report that it gives you warm emotions to hold it, I'm still going to insist that you not call it a cat. And particularly, if you are going to take a job as a veterinarian, and tell others how to acquire and care for animals, I'm going to urge you in the strongest terms to get your head straight about the differences between cats and snakes. You really could hurt somebody with your wretched advice.

Now, we'll look at a couple of the the specific verses brother Warnock adduces, because there are some similarities to what we've discussed thus far. Next week, DV, we'll look at some more.

Quoth the good doctor, emphases supplied:
Why does Mark 16 (even if it isn’t in the original autographs, but is instead an early addition to the text) say that those who believe will speak in new tongues; why is there no sense in these words that this experience is limited to the disciples?
There's that odd thing again: "Even if it isn't really in the Bible, you're obliged to explain it!"

My simple answer is, if it isn't in the Bible, I don't much care what it says. It matters if it isn't actually part of the Gospel of Mark! (I'm assuming that most readers are aware of the textual issues here.) So we really have to try to answer that question first -- and a deucedly hard question it is. Again, a mighty shaky foundation on which to rest a major doctrinal edificce.

But let's say the passage is genuine. If it is, I have another short answer.


The passage says that "these signs will accompany those who believe" (Mark 16:17). One of the signs is speaking in languages new to them. That happened. Please note carefully: the passage says that every believer would speak in tongues just as surely as it says every believer would forever speak in tongues -- which is to say never. And that is a very good thing, because the first statement would explicitly contradict 1 Corinthians 12:30, and the latter would contradict 1 Corinthians 13:8.

I'd further ask this. If this passage teaches that every believer in every generation would speak in unlearned languages, then it equally teaches that every believer in every generation would cast out demons, handle deadly snakes, and drink poison, and lay hands of healing on the sick (v. 18).

Would I be right in guessing that these do not all feature prominently in every service of Adrian's church?

Adrian's next challenge, the last for today:
Why, in Acts 2 when some heard the first outpouring of tongues did they say, “They are filled with new wine.” What was it about the disciples that made them seem drunk?
The short answer is, "they" didn't.

Let us read carefully:
And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians--we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?"
13 But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine." (Acts 2:7-13)
They didn't say, "Why, they're drunk!" They said, "Good grief, these rubes are speaking our languages! However did backwater bumpkins like these guys ever learn to speak our native tongues?" That is what they said. And further, "All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, 'What does this [speaking in unlearned languages] mean?" (v. 12)

And then, off to the side, was a minority of mockers, who did what mockers do: they mocked. They did what stupid people always do -- they blamed others for their stupidity. Their ignorance bubbled out of their foolish mouths in a lowbrow, stupid joke. They didn't know a word of the dialects being spoken, so they made fun of the speakers.

That passage isn't hard to explain at all. Here is what is really hard to explain: why do so many of the leaky-canon set build their idea of tongues on what mockers say?

Thus far for today. Lord willing, more next week.

[UPDATE: this series was started in part one, is continued in part three, and concluded in part four.]

Dan Phillips's signature


Kay said...

quick note: It's baRmy, not baLmy. Balmy is what the evenings are here right now.

DJP said...


Kay said...

Just read the rest - loved the last point. Cannot get my head around the notion of the early believers larking about like they've had a skinful. Especially not when it's based on the words of those who mocked.
Reminds me of the other verse used to bolster that nonsense "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit"
Note that this verse doesn't say 'be drunk with the Spirit'. It's a contrast.

And the rest of the post was pretty good too. I just hope Adrian's response, when he's back, isn't that you've responded to a more extreme position than he holds to..

DJP said...

I mean to speak specifically to that in the last post, Libbie. At some length. Pray for me, for clarity and charity of thought and expression, please.

Jim Crigler said...

Re: Maybe we're just kicking the football around before the real match starts!

In Great Britain, that's called a "riot." You know, as in, "I went to a riot and a football [To Americans: soccer] game broke out."

WES said...

'An ironclad case can be (and has been) made from Scripture that tongues were always supernaturally acquired human languages.'
An ironclad case that tongues were ALWAYS human language?

1 Cor. 14:2, states that whoever speaks in a tongue 'does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.' If tongues-speech is always a human language, how could Paul say that no one understands? Maybe that tongue failed the 'language test'?

1 Cor. 14:4, 'he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself' But, I thought the purpose of language/tongues is communication with another human being? Failed again.

Why are the tongues in Acts 10 and Acts 19 spoken in the presence of only believers? Where are the non-believers and another language/tongue miracle?

1 Cor. 14:18 Paul says he 'speaks in tongues more than you all'
"If they were(ALWAYS)known foreign languages that foreigners could understand, as at Pentecost, why would Paul speak more than all the Corinthians in private, where no one would understand, rather than in church where foreign visitors could understand?" (Wayne Grudem in Systematic Theology)

DJP said...

Boilerplate, non-reader.

Matt Gumm said...

DJP: Thanks for this post. Don't know why yesterday's didn't click with me, as it did with so many others, but this one was spot-on. You've hit on points that I've wondered about since I first went home with a college buddy of mine--Spring of 1990.

I will be praying for you, because this subject is important. I think this question from Adrian's last comment fairly sums things up: Just what DOES the Spirit do in the believers life- what (if any) experience of God can they expect?

The answer to this is what Team Pyro can provide for Charismatics--indeed for all of us. It may be the subject of one post, or a whole new set of them, but by defining the ministry of the Spirit, it would be a way to answer lurking questions & allow people themselves to test their experience and see if it matches up.

Carrie said...

"why do so many of the leaky-canon"

As I was reading through I started to think that the Charismatics remind me a bit of the Catholics, trying to force fit their ways in line with the Bible. Once I got down to your comment above, I wondered if you would agree?

DJP said...

Shot answer: Yes.

(After such a long post, and with the next one probably being a bit hefty too, I feel obliged to give short answers.)

Unknown said...

Absolutely loved the second, third and forth pictures with comments!
Almost fell over with the warm up picture. LOL

Good post!!!

Mike Felker said...

Dan, incredible post!! I think you definitely gave Adrian a run for his money. The only qualm I have is with 1 Cor. 13:8. I'm assuming you adhere to MacArthur's view on this that it is referring to the actual cessation of tongues with the closing of the canon.

I don't know if you've ever looked into other cessasionist interpretations, but I agree with Sam Waldron (check out his book "to be continued") in that this passage has nothing to do with the gifts themselves, but instead refers to the knowledge that comes through these gifts, hence v. 9 "We know in part and prophecy in part."

I think this verse is a direct parallel with v. 12 which Paul speaks of not seeing things clearly now because of the limited knowledge that we've been given through tongues and prophecy (v.9). But when the end comes, Paul will see everything with perfect clarity (v. 12) because he will have received full knowledge.

Check Waldron's book for a fuller explanation. If you have, i'd like to know your thoughts because I think his interpretation hinders any continuationist from saying that "when perfection comes" has anything to do with the gifts themselves.

FX Turk said...

You had me at "gobsmacked".

I'm glad I don't have anything to bump you with today.

DJP said...

Mike -- I am looking forward to reading Waldron; it's on its way. Thanks for your comments and gracious encouragement.

At this juncture, Mike, I only had ONE POINT in citing 1 Corinthians 13:8. This is it: that verse EXPRESSLY SAYS that tongues will cease.

At this juncture in the argument, "when" doesn't matter.

If you don't mind, re-read my citation in the post, with that in mind.

Carrie said...

"Shot answer: Yes."

Good enough, Dan.

That "revelation" may be obvious to you but I'm just starting to get up to speed on this stuff and making the connections. Consider me just a homo habilis to your homo sapien on the theological evolutionary scale. ;)

DJP said...

You're probably being too kind to me, and not kind enough to yourself. My knuckles are still known to drag, on occasion.

Mike Felker said...


I figured that you only had that one point in mind; that tongues will cease (although it would only be referring to the partial knowledge given through the gift; not the actual gift itself). I guess I was just wondering if you had heard this alternative interpretation, as most cessationists I know have not. Anyways, keep up the good work and I very much look forward to your take on Waldron's book!

Carrie said...

BTW, Am I the only one worried that Dan keeps mentioning Adrian's good looks?

DJP said...

Carrie, I've long noted this as an absolute, hard fact: no good-looking guy is worth anything as a theologian.

Look on the dust-jackets of the solid, substantial books.

It's just a fact.

Guy's obviously a lightweight.

xopher_mc said...


Could you point where you have demonstrated that the tounges spoke of in acts are the same as those mentioned in 1 Cor.


DJP said...

Yes, Xopher. Part three. (DV)

Steven Dresen said...

what are we to expect in part 4?

DJP said...

I broke the originally-projected part two into two parts. Part one stays part one, part two becomes parts two and three, and part three is part four.

Got it?

Steve Sensenig said...

Part one stays part one, part two becomes parts two and three, and part three is part four.

And then you'll release three (ultimately four) prequels that will really be posts one through four and these existing ones will be five through eight? ;)

Kay said...

yeah Steve, but he'll edit the first one of these posts and completely change the character of it.

Thankfully he'll include the old edit in the re-releases.

Chris Tenbrook said...

Calvin was known as a handsome man (and it shows in a few of the representations that have come down to us). Geerhardus Vos was somewhat dashing looking in some photographs.

Annette Harrison said...

" . . . Dan keeps mentioning Adrian's good looks . . ."

Well, folks, perhaps you've missed that "other" guy with the good looks and the pipe pictured from time to time in the links over at Adrian's place . . . shades of Hemingway . . er-r-r . . is that Dan Phillips himself in the flesh? !!

Thanks, Dan! Love the pic!

A Birdy said...


What would be your explanation on this quote found on Adrian Warnock's blog?

"He also prayed for the sick, speaking authoritatively over them in a Chinese-sounding tongue. Some Asians who were present identified it as Cantonese and understood what he was saying."

Annette Harrison said...

Oh phooey . . . missed your comment about good looking lightweight theologians . . .


Well . . . maybe we could make an exception?

lycaphim said...

Not very well documented. I tried other news services to see if anything came up regarding this, and nope, nothing.

So the news must've been kept internally, and it seems only this magazine (a Charismatic one at that) has reported it.

Might be true, but no reason as of yet to belief that it is the real thing. Too many variables, to say the least.

FX Turk said...

I just re-read this, and it's brutal. Simply brutal.

I think I winced once or twice.

FX Turk said...


I dunno what Dan would say. I would say, "the next time you cite a source like that, make sure you quote it to the end."

Here's what it says at the bottom of the paragraph:

He was rebuking sickness and commanding healing in Jesus’ name. There was a strong awareness of the Holy Spirit’s presence and some of us felt quite drunk by the end!

Quite drunk. Obviously, not baptists.

Yankeerev said...

As a Phillips myself, a Brit now living and serving in CA, and the son of a Charismatic pastor I am enjoying the banter on this subject. Unlike you (Dan), however, I am not much for cabbage the first time.

Honestly, as a cessationist, I have repeatedly asked my father and others in his camp about defending their position from Scripture. There was always a reluctance on their part as their hermeneutic was typically shaky and measured by the fact that "Tongues are real" (because we experience it). So, reading these threads, heavy and humorous as they are, is quite refreshing...

Thanks for taking it on...

David B. Hewitt said...

Hey, Dan -- good post.

I do have a couple of questions, and they partly pertain to what Wes said. I won't bother repeating it, but I am wondering -- what of those passages he raised? I'm certainly curious and wanting to learn.

Another thing is that I can give you a case of a real human language showing up in a supernatural tongues experience. It wasn't mine, but I knew the man who experienced it.

He was in Israel and was witnessing to an Arab man who was speaking to him in English (so my friend thought). They walked along for a while, and the man was ready to receive Christ. At that moment, they arrived at their destination and Anis Shorrosh was there who spoke both English and Arabic. He is (was?) a former Muslim and is/was an evangelist.

My friend explained quickly to Anis what was happening and what this man walking with him was about to do -- but the man didn't respond. My friend tried to prompt him, but couldn't get him to say anything. Anis then addressed the man and asked, in Arabic, if the things my friend was saying were true. The man confirmed that they were, and then asked Anis why my friend was no longer speaking Arabic (!). Anis asked my friend about this, and he (my friend) was very surprised -- he had been hearing English. The Arab man then told Anis that my friend was speaking some of the best Arabic he had ever heard.

It would seem that tongues indeed took place here, as well as interpretation. My friend didn't ask for the gift, and didn't even know God was performing the miracle! And, when the need was no longer present, it stopped.

Anyway, all I have to say at the moment. :)


Anonymous said...

Wow, another witty post. I think you have done an excellent job pointing to the faulty reasoning of Charismaticism, better than I have heard from many people in a while. I must say 'Two thumbs up!'

Soli Deo Gloria

DJP said...

another witty post

Thanks; I aim for "witty," but often with only half (or dim) success.


Anonymous said...

I was thinking about it, and it dawned on me that you should write a book on the Charismatic movement and its delusions. And show how God led you from the movement itself. Whenever I talk with Charismatics, there big question is not about Scripture, but 'if it is not from God, who is it from?' (i.e. sign gifts). And I think that what your saying could help alot of struggling Christians I know to see what they think a cessationist cannot.

The big problem in this post-modern culture (among Charismatics) is that they think that since they had an experience, who are we (cessationists) to say what they had was not real or from God. This thesis of an argument is clearly not Scriptural, for they hold experience as equivalent with the truth.

Ultimatley, I think that someone who has professed coming out of this movement might make a bigger impact than someone (in their view) as looking from the sidelines. Basically, they remove our accussations because we do not know them; so, how can we judge. (Again, not Scriptural)

Just an idea that I thought I should offer.

DJP said...

...you should write a book on the Charismatic movement and its delusions

I did, at least in part, but it will probably never be published. The title is The Holy Spirit: His Person, Work and Gifts. But thanks.

As to your point about relating my experience. Funny thing, that; some blog tried to do a hatchet-job of gainsaying its way through one of these posts. On the part when I mentioned, passingly, being an ex-Charismatic, the writer said something like, "Oh, so it's personal. Now we know."

You see? A man convinced against his will....

If Scripture won't persuade someone, he won't be convinced even if one rise from out of the movement.

C. T. Lillies said...


If Scripture won't persuade someone, he won't be convinced even if one rise from out of the movement.

chuckle Thats a good one.

You know leaky cannons almost always blow up in your face.


Catez said...

Was wondering if you would consider linking each previous/next part at the end of each post in the series - so it's easier to follow on from 1 to 2 etc..
Just a suggestion.

Anonymous said...

"If Scripture won't persuade someone, he won't be convinced even if one rise from out of the movement."

True, very true...

donsands said...

Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:7: "For I wish that all men were even as I myself."

It's important to keep the passion of the Apostle Paul in view when studying his teachings on tongues, I would think.

Shannon said...

Even if I disagree with you, you're a good writer, and any friend of Phil Johnson's is a friend of mine (I've met him a few times some years back at the Toledo Reformed Theological Conference up in North-Western Ohio). Bless you and your ministry.

p.s. - check out http://heatlight.wordpress.com/ sometime...I'm sure you'll cringe. ;-)