tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post8908725178203715275..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Cussing AgainPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55703618437981112472009-10-23T16:10:59.051-07:002009-10-23T16:10:59.051-07:00Round,
I think we must be having a lot of trouble...Round,<br /><br />I think we must be having a lot of trouble communicating. I'm not sure what you think I've arguing. (For instance--you said you stand by what you had said about the Holy Spirit. So it sounds like you think I disagreed that the Holy Spirit, when I actually just said that <i>one</i> way the Holy Spirit brings conviction is through the rebuke of fellow believers who are rightly handling Scripture. And I'll be really surprised if you disagree with that kind of direct Biblical teaching. 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Tim. 2:15). If I was talking in a confusing way, I apologize; if it happens again in the future--with me or someone else--I'd encourage you to ask people to clarify.<br /><br /><br />Phil,<br /><br />Thank you very much for that answer. Good meat to chew on.<br /><br /><br /><br />I also wanted to post this additional link from Dan Wallace. He posted an entry called Pauline Scatology on the Parchment and Pen blog, but it was lost when their databases got corrupted last year--so I couldn't find it when I looked on Monday. But here's a link at archive.org:<br /><br /><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20071218075934/http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/09/25/pauline-scatology/" rel="nofollow">Pauline Scatology, Dan Wallace</a>Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31782894054854864372009-10-20T11:46:09.107-07:002009-10-20T11:46:09.107-07:00This doesn't necessarily meet what would be ca...This doesn't necessarily meet what would be called a biblical test, but I've found that it can be pretty reliable. If the word you use would cause your mother or grandmother to wash your mouth out with lye soap, or would get you fired in a place of business dealing with the public, that's a pretty good indicator. <br /><br />In former days, I used to challenge Christians who defended a "free tongue" to use those words from the pulpit or Sunday school lectern. They would generally blush, hem and haw, and then try to say why it wouldn't be appropriate there. <br /><br />That doesn't work anymore, since pastors and Sunday school teachers are doing their Lenny Bruce/George Carlin routines on live mic these days.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86950379746679415712009-10-20T09:03:36.555-07:002009-10-20T09:03:36.555-07:00Jugulum: Hence my question: "Does anyone have...<b>Jugulum:</b> <i>Hence my question: "Does anyone have further information to back that up? How do we know that 'aischrotes' refers not just to talk about vulgar topics, but also to talk using taboo words?"</i><br /><br />I don't think anyone is saying a word <i>per se</i> can be evil--as if expletives had the property of bad magic or evil juju. I'm not suggesting that cussing is bad because these words are like a "negative confession" in abracadabra form. That much <i>should</i> be clear.<br /><br />The sense of the word <i>aischrotes</i> is "filthy" or "obscene," and it comes from a Greek root that speaks of "shame." It's a broad term, not a specific one. But the context makes clear what Paul means: <i>nothing</i> obscene or (as my mom used to say) "dirty" should come out of our mouths. ("Let it not even be named among you"--v. 3).<br /><br />The fact that he is talking about what comes out of our <i>mouths</i> is clear from the immediate context, which speaks of "foolish talk" and "crude joking."<br /><br />It's pretty hard to see how anyone could simultaneously obey this command and yet employ words that are themselves generally deemed obscene, filthy, or shameful--especially if the speaker is employing such terms for their shock value or as crude or demeaning exclamations.<br /><br />Only a few words are universally deemed obscene in English, and I don't need to provide a list of them. There are, of course, several other words whose propriety is debatable. They may be ambiguous in meaning or regionally classified as either "filthy" or perfectly acceptable--or various shades in between. (A few words we commonly use in a perfectly innocent sense in the US mean something obscene in UK usage. When I'm in the UK or writing for UK readers, I avoid those words in any context.)<br /><br />We don't need to discuss the merits (or demerits) of individual words here. I have no interest in expanding the short-list of obscene English words. If you can use a word or expression while dealing with a customer within earshot of the boss and no one bats an eye, it's probably OK to use in almost any context.<br /><br />But if either the language you use or the substance of what you say glorifies some sin like fornication, minimizes the evil of such sins, treats something wicked as fodder for a joke or entertainment, or abuses the ears (or mind) of your audience in an unholy or unloving manner, then you are violating the substance of this commandment.<br /><br />In short, the concern I am raising is not a dispute about words <i>per se.</i> It's not sounds and syllables that concern me, but a pervasive attitude that reflects a casual apathy (and in some cases an arrogant pride in one's own "liberality") toward filthiness in general.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63483433802265189282009-10-20T08:55:45.320-07:002009-10-20T08:55:45.320-07:00Jug, Wake up. (Romans 13:11-14, 14:12-13) I am no...Jug, Wake up. (Romans 13:11-14, 14:12-13) I am not sure if I can take you seriously. It appears that on one hand you are suggesting that a book of sinful words is needed, however, I also sense that the word to follow from you would be legalist.<br /><br />I stand by my statement that the Holy Spirit convicts of sin. I also believe that our goal ought to be to bring glory to God and not to be offensive or how far the envelope can be pushed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43543131819949002152009-10-20T07:17:26.175-07:002009-10-20T07:17:26.175-07:00Jug,
I really didn't mean to imply that you w...Jug,<br /><br />I really didn't mean to imply that you were brain-dead. My frustration is with the culture (in the church) in general who wants to argue about stuff like this and defend inappropriate language. <br /><br />Anymore, when I hear the word "culture," I think of the fungus growing in a petri dish, and not art, music, literature or anything else of dignity.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86064665543199158092009-10-20T05:39:04.153-07:002009-10-20T05:39:04.153-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10903325040069411228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27470256855358087742009-10-20T05:22:37.595-07:002009-10-20T05:22:37.595-07:00There you go again, Phil. You are using truth and ...There you go again, Phil. You are using truth and logic to teach when we all know that the important thing is to be illogical, tolerant, and even un-Biblical when necessary to placate the fleshly motivators of the lost lemmings... ;-)<br /><br />Look, these rebel pastor dudes, new mystics, emergents, and so forth are only wshowing what they are really made of. From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.<br /><br />Some years ago (and continuing), I began to pray about people being revealed for who they really are. This has indeed begun to happen. The 'cussing' preachers are simply revealing their true nature. <br /><br />Thanks for spreading inconvenient truth... <br /><br />T.<br /><br />www.truthinator.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63829636018845607082009-10-20T04:31:50.580-07:002009-10-20T04:31:50.580-07:00I never thought this day would come. I have a stan...I never thought this day would come. I have a standing policy not to dispute with my blog-brothers.<br /><br />But this cannot stand. It must be said. I must say it.<br /><br /><b>Phil Johnson is WRONG.</b><br /><br />Whew. Whoa. Hang on, got to catch my breath. Wow. Whew.<br /><br />Okay, where was I? Oh, right: Phil is wrong.<br /><br />When?<br /><br />When he says this: <i><b>"But I would be the first to confess that art is not my forte."</b></i><br /><br />No? What are those graphics, which just about everyone who talks to me about Pyro mentions with an admiring smile?<br /><br />Art.<br /><br />And particularly, what are <a href="http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/posters.htm" rel="nofollow">the Po-Motivators</a>?<br /><br />Art.<br /><br />There you go.<br /><br />Now, brother... take it back. No use denying it. The world knows the truth.<br /><br />Phil Johnson: <i>Artiste.</i>DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85936617537696319332009-10-20T03:06:56.793-07:002009-10-20T03:06:56.793-07:00The sin of cussing
No different than the others
Ju...The sin of cussing<br />No different than the others<br />Judgment, for instance<br />-ChristianHaiku.comChristian Haikuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03064512235358128480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86957180325198097482009-10-19T21:18:20.320-07:002009-10-19T21:18:20.320-07:00But PS: I would amend what I said in my first com...But PS: I would amend what I said in my first comment.<br /><br />"<i>As people seem to agree, the big question with cussing is taboo words. (The concepts aren't necessarily taboo--there are non-taboo synonyms. The taboo applies to particular words.)</i>"<br /><br />Frank's comment was a good addition--that it also has to do with their use as expressions of vile contempt. (Though I'm still mulling over whether it's accurate to say that they are <i>excusively</i> for expressing that.)Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78173840464362046112009-10-19T21:14:43.650-07:002009-10-19T21:14:43.650-07:00Phil,
No, not me. I think you're remembering...Phil,<br /><br />No, not me. I think you're remembering <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/10/cussing-again.html#c8700473654126622305" rel="nofollow">Ed M's comment</a>. (No problem. Kudos, typing that comment on iPhone!)<br /><br />I just reposted my main question to you, in my comment to Solameanie.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15611752019958692552009-10-19T21:09:17.869-07:002009-10-19T21:09:17.869-07:00Sola,
As for weak & squishy, don't make m...Sola,<br /><br />As for weak & squishy, don't make my criticism broader than I did. I said:<br /><br />"However, the cause of Biblical orthodoxy is not helped by defending traditional assumptions with weak or incomplete exegesis. (<b>And I do think <i>some</i> of these arguments are weak.</b>) [bold added, italics are original]" That's "some".<br /><br />And "squishy" was my word for the stereotypical <i>emergent</i> argument style, not for yours or Phil's or anyone else's here.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/10/cussing-again.html#c8234003007752643305" rel="nofollow">This</a> is what I definitely thought was "weak". <br /><br />I thought Phil's use of Eph 5:4 was simply incomplete.<br /><br />Hence my <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/10/cussing-again.html#c3880532379502143604" rel="nofollow">question</a>: "Does anyone have further information to back that up? How do we know that "aischrotes" refers not just to talk about vulgar topics, but also to talk using taboo words?"<br /><br />I suspect there's a good chance that it does--but I can't present it as the teaching of God's Word without being confident that it does mean taboo words. And questioning whether "obscenity/filthiness" refers to filthy <i>content</i> rather than filthy <i>vocabulary choice</i> doesn't strike me as terribly emergent, squishy, or braindead. It's a reasonable question--and the answer shouldn't be that hard, if it does refer to taboo cusswords.<br /><br />Yours was a reference to Prov 17:20--which might be about deceitfulness, and not vulgarity at all. If it refers to vulgarity, then I have the same question as on Eph 5:4. (As I asked in my first comment to you!) If it doesn't--then yes, it turns out to be a weak & cursory argument, though I don't mock you for going by the NASB translation. I just hope you can see that there's a real question about your verse--and one that will show up quickly, when someone who doesn't already agree with you tries to examine it.<br /><br /><br />Now, I have no desire to be braindead. (If you were surprised at "weak & squishy", how do you expect me to react to "braindead"?) And I'm aware this has been discussed before. That's precisely why my first comment was a simple, respectful request for further information backing up the idea that "filthiness" in Eph 5:4 includes taboo vocabulary. And that's why my first comment to <i>you</i> was similar.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58376009857020283532009-10-19T20:57:48.430-07:002009-10-19T20:57:48.430-07:00Jugulum:
I think it was you who asked whether &qu...<b>Jugulum:</b><br /><br />I think it was you who asked whether "culture" is the absolute arbiter of acceptible language. (I read the thread this afternoon at baggage claim, and I can't recall infallibly who said what).<br /><br />All I have tonight is my iPhone--not the best tool for long replies, so I'll try to answer you more thoroughly later, perhaps with a full post. But here's a short reply to tide you over:<br /><br />Abraham Piper raised a similar question at his blog last week. <br /><br />The answer, of course, is that "culture" never determines where the bar of biblical morality should be set. And yet one of the principles of biblical morality is that if something offends the moral sensitivities of a culture, then whether culture's standard has a biblical basis or not, we should respect the culture's scruples--unless there's a very clear reason, rooted in some higher biblical principle, to offend the cultural standard. (Even Wal-Mart & McDonald's undertand that it's bad to offend others' moral sensibilities, and that's why their employees aren't permitted to cuss in the presence of customers.)<br /><br />That's what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 9. He is advocating respect for a culture's taboos & traditions, not giving a rationale for tattoos and eyebrow studs.<br /><br />There are times, of course, when obeying God might mean disobeying cultural customs and taboos. But the general biblical principle is that such standards are to be respected insofar as it's possible.<br /><br />You confuse things by equating our culture's contempt for the name of Christ (not a new phenomenon, by the way) with every culture's tendency to regard scatological words as "filthy" and therefore inappropriate for polite society. The latter is a judgment Scripture encourages; the former is an attitude the Bible condemns.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69314118971741563402009-10-19T20:54:43.572-07:002009-10-19T20:54:43.572-07:00Matthew 12:36 "But I tell you that every care...Matthew 12:36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment." (careless = idle, useless) <br /><br />If every careless word spoken will have an accountability, then what of every vile word. <br /><br />If every careless word spoken will have an accountability, then what of every use of God's name that is not in reverence and love. <br /><br />If all who have been baptized in His name bear His name (not to mention that humans are made in His image), then all of our words bear on His name in some degree. <br /><br />1 Corinthians 10:31 "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." Using crude and vulgar language does not manifest the glory of God.RichardShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366661721715080133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19395191942240216612009-10-19T20:22:26.015-07:002009-10-19T20:22:26.015-07:00Trickynikkit: "this is all well and good, but...<b>Trickynikkit:</b> <i>"this is all well and good, but is that your justification for calling someone in Christian music who talks about the things that matter, who is as bold, creative, and revolutionary as Derek Webb "an angry, crude-mouthed bobble-head"</i><br /><br />Well, no. My "justification" for that comment is that in the video in question, Webb did, in fact, assume the persona of an angry, foul-mouthed bobblehead. His own record label certainly recognized that and knew it would be problematic. They asked him not to do it, but he did it anyway. I'm sure you have heard of the controversy that ensued. It's quite famous.<br /><br />I realize, of course, that Webb did it in the name of art, and as everyone who listens to the NAE knows, every vile thing from excrement to porn is deemed artsy nowadays.<br /><br />Obviously I am not as awed by the artistic merits of this music video as you are (my critical tastes are more in line with the producers who tried to tell Derrick Webb his swearing was a bad idea). But I would be the first to confess that art is not my forte. I'm willing to give Derrick Webb all the credit he deserves for his "art."<br /><br />But the "angry, foul-mouthed bobble-head" remark was not some random phrase I pulled out of thin air in order to be insulting. That is the part he plays in that video. Watch it and see for yourself if you don't believe me. Being offended about it is rather like some Devo fan getting piqued at someone who describes that band's headgear as upside-down flower pots.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18356421402533376492009-10-19T20:13:25.232-07:002009-10-19T20:13:25.232-07:00Jug,
No desire to be weak or squishy, and above a...Jug,<br /><br />No desire to be weak or squishy, and above all no desire to mishandle Scripture. I'm a bit surprised you'd say that. <br /><br />I didn't look up the Hebrew when citing the verse, and really didn't think it was necessary. This isn't the only time this issue has been discussed here and elsewhere, and in general when this issue is discussed, the usual and/or appropriate Scriptures get cited. Why do I need to go into a lengthy dissertation? When Scripture talks about corrupt speech, filthy talk, coarse jesting etc..are we really that brain-dead that we don't know what that means? <br /><br />Most cultures have their obscene, vulgar and profane words, and their meaning/intent is unmistakable. It seems to me that the heart intent of Scripture is plain that our speech is not to go in that direction. <br /><br />I'll tell one little amusing anecdote. I had to fill the pulpit one day at a local United Methodist Church. The day I was there, an elder in the church was sitting in the sanctuary discussing sheep farming with another man and used the profane word for manure. I was surprised, but let it pass and said nothing. A few weeks later, I ran into this elder at a gas station and politics was mentioned in passing. I said that I thought some of our Illinois politicians were "in bed" with other groups of concern, and this elder winced like he was startled. He said in complete seriousness, "I'm surprised a pastor would talk that way." Well, I'm not a pastor, but that's irrelevant. Funny it would be okay for him, but not for me..and what I said wasn't something typically seen as profane. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I do try to be careful with my speech these days. I have no desire to bring shame or reproach on the Lord.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46976552011732825612009-10-19T20:00:27.607-07:002009-10-19T20:00:27.607-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15147021671506048314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53041923532763682342009-10-19T17:47:59.903-07:002009-10-19T17:47:59.903-07:00Michael:
"Swearing is often an attempt to co...Michael:<br /><br /><i>"Swearing is often an attempt to colour language with emotion and force when the person does not have the vocabulary or articulation to pull it off - weak intellect? Weak verbal skills?</i>"<br /><br />I have often made this argument and I am usually met with derision. Of the acquaintances that I know who cuss as part of their normal vocabulary, I find they lack the ability to express themselves except through the use of three of four cuss words.<br /><br />"<i>Why do you want to be at the cutting edge of the vulgarisation of culture?</i>"<br /><br />Supposing that the current words being used by people such as Driscoll are no longer considered cuss words, why is there such emphasis and proactive encouragement of the use of such words?Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54016779996008508042009-10-19T17:00:29.472-07:002009-10-19T17:00:29.472-07:00I think the real issue Phil is trying to get at in...I think the real issue Phil is trying to get at in this post is not so much a matter of which words constitute cussing, or which circumstances seem more or less justifiable environments in which to cuss, but rather how gravely sinful and offensive to God's holiness it is for those who claim to know and love Christ to intentionally be as worldly and carnal as they can, whatever the particular manifestation of such carnality. <br /><br />However, is this not the over-arching problem with all things emergent, and with their blind apostate leaders: that they insist upon trying to join God, in unholy union, with their own worldly perceptions, desires, and practices whilst also remaining dogmatic in their insistence that the sins they advocate in their agenda are somehow acceptable before a Holy God. <br /><br />Well, true believers should not be surprised at the increase of the antics among those who oppose Him within the church, like these blatant examples of worldly mouthes (even from pulpits), as God will continue to harden their hearts as they shake their fists at His holiness, wanting nothing of it in their own lives. Hence, cussing is the only language these people know because this world is clearly all they know; they do not know God, despite their Christian titles. I think the whole cussing issue should be the last, most clearly pronounced marker that a huge percetage of that which is called "Christian" out there (churches, authors, ministries, colleges, radio personalities) is nothing of the sort! They couldn't make themselves clearer. <br /><br />Pray for their souls, that they might encounter the true and living God of scripture in humble submission to His holiness and sovereignty.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40300680242968551362009-10-19T16:55:56.135-07:002009-10-19T16:55:56.135-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85153653319276103882009-10-19T15:16:08.523-07:002009-10-19T15:16:08.523-07:00Whoops, it wasn't clear: From Frank's ema...Whoops, it wasn't clear: From Frank's email reply, it does look like he mixed me up with someone else in last week's church discussion.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81011555885946029742009-10-19T15:15:28.430-07:002009-10-19T15:15:28.430-07:00My two cents added to the actual argument is this:...My two cents added to the actual argument is this:<br /><br />Why do you want to be at the cutting edge of the vulgarisation of culture?<br /><br />Why not be at the cutting edge of the sanctification of culture?<br /><br />All the back and forth about who's really offended, which words are really bad or just a little bad etc etc slip into the background a little as I consider perspective as we decide which of those we want to be.<br /><br />Michael HuttonMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01504277207295036311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78863099949879715712009-10-19T15:12:50.179-07:002009-10-19T15:12:50.179-07:00I was puzzled by this apology, so I started writin...I was puzzled by this apology, so I started writing this comment (even after I sent Frank an email about it). I just got the reply, but it's bugging me to see Frank's apology sitting there in public view. So for public consumption:<br /><br />1.) I don't know what bad treatment you're apologizing for. I wasn't here for the church discussion last week. I think you mixed me up with someone else. (In fact, in our last interaction, I apologized to <i>you</i>, because I got a bit charged.)<br /><br />2.) If you did treat me poorly, I would absolutely accept your apology.<br /><br />3.) Of all the people I don't <i>really</i> know--Internet people--you're one of my favorite. I appreciate your love for the body of Christ, and your convicting calls on how we do church. Multiple times, I've been convicted toward true Christ-like service & love. They're like love-taps upside the head. (You're also one of my favorite people to wrangle with. Even when I think you're going off into the woods, I expect you to come back with some good meat to chew on.)Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26182593470361076442009-10-19T14:57:28.954-07:002009-10-19T14:57:28.954-07:00Flabbergasted!!
I followed one of the links. It ...Flabbergasted!!<br /><br />I followed one of the links. It wasn't until author Dave posted a response comment that I worked out he was serious. I thought the whole article was a satire!! Don't swear at McDonalds in case you offend someone, but at church, it's fine.<br /><br />Ai-yai-yai yai-yai<br /><br />Doug Masters,<br /><br />I would keep weak in the quote, but keep sinful in the background awareness. <br /><br />Swearing is often an attempt to colour language with emotion and force when the person does not have the vocabulary or articulation to pull it off - weak intellect? Weak verbal skills? how to put it nicely...<br /><br />Swearing is also a bad habit, fairly easily corrected (compared to smoking etc) if someone is serious about it. - Weak will.<br /><br />I think the funniest use of swearing (in that pathetic way) is when the expletive that is supposed to add force is so overused and emptied that it has to be repeated or augmented with another expletive. Sometimes actual meaningful words that contribute sense to the sentence are less than 50% of a normal conversation.<br /><br />Michael HuttonMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01504277207295036311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85356085610926256842009-10-19T14:16:59.598-07:002009-10-19T14:16:59.598-07:00Matthew 12:36 is one of those "haunting"...Matthew 12:36 is one of those "haunting" verses that brings out the Arminian in me.<br /><br />Truly, the taming of the tongue is a lifelong endeavor. And I always end up wondering whether my account be overdrawn when God opens His books?<br /><br />It always brings me back to begging Jesus to hide me under His blood.<br /><br />heatherCraig and Heatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11962442989291080899noreply@blogger.com