In those times professing Christians rarely if ever were found being profane in speech. And it’s not that it was a particularly epic moment in church history for the church’s sanctity. But it was simply understood that it was not just dishonorable, and inimical to one’s own profession of faith and public repute, but it was contrary to very plain and repeated commands of God, and such influences yet had traction and gravity in the believer’s conscience. It’s always possible that my experience was unique and non-representative of the age as a whole, but without all controversy, it was vastly different than the gutter talk that Christians commonly indulge in our day. Not only have the average “run of the mill” believers seemed to have embraced an ethic which allows such a perverse disregard of decency, but they flock to churches with brazenly profane leaders, who never seem to be wanting in spiritual miscarriages supplying them with a following.

I remember hearing a professing Christian telling a profane joke around 1983, and I believe that was the first time I ever heard a Christian use ungodly language. I had been a believer for about four years. I asked him if he would tell that one to Jesus. That ended that conversation. And that is a good question for all the moderns who seem to have entirely ditched any semblance or appearance of decency in conversation. Truly it brings the entire question to a head, as no Christian would ever say they would utter such filth in prayer, or in the presence of the Lord of all the Earth. So then, their defense of it is pure hypocrisy, being overtly contrary to their own understanding of what they know full well is acceptable to God. When we speak of a sensitive topic may rightly be moderated by the character of the company we are in. How we talk of it should be regulated by the same rule as anywhere else.

Among other aspects of the corrupting influences of modernity which may account for this degeneration of character, the casualties of the information highway might be considered. Christians have swallowed such examples whole without chewing. There’s an old epigram by Alexander Pope, and it goes like this. (Mien is pronounced as “mean”, and signifies “appearance”)


Sin is a monster of such awful mien,
That to be hated, needs but to be seen.
But seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

And that’s exactly what has happened to our generation. They have uncritically swallowed whole nearly every wicked thing they see without chewing, the perverting creep of Fabian incrementalism being the method, until we see little difference between the church and the world. Nearly all the big conservative talk show hosts are profane, and one has to wonder if you can get platformed without it. I’d list it like this:
The worst: Joe Rogan, Meghan Kelly, Russel Brand, Paul Joseph Watson, Dan Bongino, Tim Poole, Clayton Morris, Benny Johnson, Michael Knowles
Not quite as bad: Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Jim Bannon,
Most rare: Officer Tatum, Jesse Petersen, Candice Owen, Mat Walsh, D’nesh D’Sousa.

Looking at the genetics of those listed, perhaps we will have to change our terms for profane speech from “Ghetto talk” to “Suburbia speak”. Except that these are sadly starting to get dragged into this abyss as well.

Such ostensibly conservative examples are watched overwhelmingly by a Christian audience and have been profoundly corrupting, and their tolerance has first revealed, and then exacerbated, a want of genuine contrariety to sin that ought to be guiding and modifying every Christian’s conversation. But instead, we’ve devolved into the very moral relativism we always hear denounced at church and in Christian periodicals. Whose next sermon/article will be about the evils of being too strict.

But while profanity is winked at, it’s reproof isn’t, but rather such as reprove it will typically be shown the door if intractably impenitent, being rather despised and resented to the degree that sin is brought into the light, so as to embarrass the godless nature and faithless principles that guide the advocates of degeneracy. (Jn.3:20) But if the BIBLE enjoins us to purity of speech, (and we shall soon see that that is emphatically and abundantly the case), then sanctified speech is a matter of divine command, and any that imagine that God’s commands can be thus dismissed or trifled with, expose themselves not only to censure, but to a valid question as to the sincerity of their profession of faith. “He that is of God heareth God’s words. Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” (Jn.8:47)

As this degeneration of morals has accelerated over the years I’ve been quite forward to reprove it, and have (quite willingly) taken just about any and every form of mockery for doing so. I remember being mocked and ridiculed on social media by a man who goes for a “Reformed Pastor” for objecting to and reproving his justification of others mixing their favorite profane word for excrement with the holiness of God, than which a greater blasphemy could hardly be imagined. And yet this very phrase is not rare, but common even among those who imagine themselves to be believers.

Is it not apparent that any person so bankrupt of faith or principle as could speak of holy feces is a complete fraud, and has no fear of God of any kind or degree? How could the fear of God possibly reside in such a heart as utters such extremities of blasphemy? While a case might be made for spiritual weakness in such as are later penitent for such outrages, yet what sort of blinded son of the devil defends this, or even adorns his blasphemy with being the fruits of a more enlightened conscience, being given over to the state of being a “stronger brother”? Plainly any professions of reverence for the Person and honor of God are entirely fraudulent when the holiness commanded of God in scripture is demeaned as spiritual weakness. God is holy, and …. What else is?

And sadly, it’s not just personal associates and media that have peddled the pathetic examples, but the Christian ministry, and the “minister” mentioned above is by no means exceptional. It has become increasingly common for “ministers” to be openly profane, both in private, on social media, in publications, and from the pulpit as well, and there is no want of examples of such degeneracy of public character seen in “spiritual” “leaders”. Popular preachers like Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, Jeff Durbin, and many others think themselves edgy, winning, and “relevant” to the religious hipster elements of degenerate modernity, or to the heady reconstructionist faction, both imagining they have unbound themselves from the fabricated fictions of fundamentalists. But having found a following of wayward converts, scripture and history can be easily disdained, and those who repeat the warnings of their own ostensible fathers in the faith, laughed off with the self-will of a devotee of Darwin. Wilson here.[1] Durbin here.[2] Driscoll, here.[3] These, and others, will be critiqued in due order.

Let us consider yet one more personal “case in point” that will lead into the title of this article.  I was engaged in a discussion on social media which was more or less representative of the current ascendant degeneracy of morals. The individual I was chatting with used some profane speech, for which I reproved him. And it was predictable, as is common among professing Christians in our degenerate times, that this individual’s profanity of speech was accepted and defended, or at least tolerated to the point where its blunt reproof was esteemed unfashionable, mean-spirited, dour, and of course “puritanical”, by literally everyone in the conversation but myself. The “objection” that it was “Puritanical”, (though to me a compliment), I found humorous above the other remonstrances, as it was coming from people who would, by all expectation, reverence the Puritans as their fathers in the faith by reason of their imagined Reformed heritage. I say, “Imagined”, in as much as no Reformed ever so behaved in all of history.[4] Well, this gent mentioned above assured me that since the Apostle Paul used words for excrement that therefore we might use vulgarity ourselves with apostolic warrant, and it seemed appropriate to address this directly, and hence the title of this article: Is Vulgarity Pauline?

Did the Apostle Paul leave us an example of, and a warrant for, profaneness of speech? In jealousy to warrant and validate their violation of Paul’s plain instructions not to be profane in speech, (Eph.5:3-4, among many other places), such advocates rush into lawless speculation about his use of speech in places like Phil.3:8, where Paul says, “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ”. The position thus pleaded for makes the presumptuous and thoughtless deduction that the specific Greek word used by Paul in this place was, in his times and culture, considered to be a profane reference, thus staging him in complete contradiction to himself. Just like we have normative words and profane words for one and the same thing in our own times, this was unavoidably true in his times as well, else what can biblical prohibitions of unclean speech even mean? What does a prohibition of evil speech, perverse lips, profane babblings, a froward mouth, corrupt communication, or filthy communication mean, if we may speak about any subject (as we may), but also use any form of speech to do so? (Which we may not) What is “sound speech that cannot be condemned” then? What are “acceptable words”? Such prohibitions are straight from the bible[5]. So until someone wishes to go further than merely making assumptions, they make no point at all, and did they feel they had succeeded in such an apologetic, it would only succeed in disproving the bible’s rather perspicuous and abundant mandates against such speech. And this may be said regarding any ostensible example of questionable speech in the bible, not just in Phil.3:8.

In a more general way it might be pointed out that there are many words which possess a potential for profane use, which usually arises from a meaning for which decorum requires discretion. What goes on in someone’s bedroom or bathroom may be a wholly appropriate topic for a man and wife, or between a person and their doctor, but we don’t for this sake warrant as vulgar of words as possible for any and every occasion, even in legitimate communication about it, nor deem that because some expressions between men on such topics are appropriate, therefore all are.  There are words we find in the bible which reference the same meaning as the individual afore referenced was pleased to use in public. Biblically, usually “dung” or “manure”. Obviously it is not unlawful to verbally reference such matters of human experience, per se, when the bible does, but then only as the bible does: with extreme discretion and moderation. That’s worth repeating. It is not unlawful to verbally reference such matters of human experience, per se, when we find this in the bible, but then only as we find it in the bible: with extreme discretion and moderation.

And so… let’s talk about that. The bible references such topics frequently, both as it respects human sexuality and mankind’s elimination processes, the two areas around which profanity typically centers. In such instances the bible nearly always uses the most discreet language possible, so much so that often times it can take a bit of study to know what they’re even talking about. Saul “covered his feet” in the cave. (ISam.24:3) Warriors in the camp are commanded as to an appropriate way to “ease yourself abroad” so that the camp does not become polluted, and an offense to God. (Deut. 23:13) Men are forbidden to “uncover the nakedness” of near of kin. (Lev. 18) So forth, so on, and etc. 

And there is your biblical standard. A standard of discretion and of modesty. That is demonstrably and universally how the bible addresses such matters. Is it how you do? Is your standard, the bible’s standard? Alas, if my reader be as most in our day, this standard is hated, loathed, despised, detested and abhorred, and…. mocked.  Because, for perhaps most professing Christians, thus are their feelings for the bible, (and by inference, for the God of the bible), if ever they allow themselves to come to understand what it actually says.

Imagine for a minute, you who defend the modern manners, what that would sound like in bible references?  “And Adam knew his wife” would be …. ??? (Gen. 4:25) “Do you not yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast out in the draught?” would be….. ??? (Mat. 15:17) Or what would “They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.” sound like? (Jn. 8:4)? Or what would, “And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her” sound like? And if you can’t put it there, why is it in your mouth?

Or apply this to the many hundreds of places the bible makes such references, and tell me what kind of bible you would have? All the same people who use such language as a common thing without thought or twinge of conscience would doubtless feel obliged to affect some remonstrance over such a bible, though it entirely befits them.  And what will you call that version? The low-life ghetto version? (LGV), or excuse me, that would be the low-life Suburbia version, or LSV. “The Ribald Scum Version”? (RSV) The CBV, the “Christ and Belial Version”?

Or think about what that would sound like in a sermon, or in a conversation with a fiancé’s parents. “I honorably desire to have a family with your daughter” would become… ??? You see… the fact that literally no one uses such language in such cases means but one thing: They know full well that it’s inappropriate else they would reckon its use alike lawful there as anywhere else. The same vocabulary employed at a church picnic or approaching a fiancé’s parents, is exactly that which you should use in private with your most familiar friends.
Certain topics may or may not be appropriate for various company or circumstances, but when they are appropriate, they will be addressed with precisely the same measure as the bible deals with them… in discretion and modesty, or all pretense to caring about a biblical standard have manifestly been jettisoned.

What vocabulary would you employ in a conversation with Jesus such as the apostles had with Him? Do we find them cussing a blue streak? Would you? We read of the godly of antiquity, of whom it was said, “They walked as in God’s presence”. Is this worthy to emulate? Is it consistent with your mouth? Again, what topic may be appropriate to discuss in a given circumstance will certainly vary by company and setting. But why on earth would that change the vocabulary? It’s not like we’re profane in one company, and employ purity of speech in another, unless we are overt hypocrites, and openly profess the virtue of a double standard. If we talk about something, and how we talk about something are two very different things. “If” may be determined by company and circumstance. “How” can be determined by moral arguments alone.

I stated above that “many words have been deemed profane”. But deemed profane by whom? it will be rejoined. Is appeal being made to the binding moral obligation to …. culture? Social “mores” do ascribe a character of vulgarity to words, and yes that is purely cultural. Why does the word representing the old British criminal charge for public fornication, (“For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge”), constitute profanity, and the word “copulation” doesn’t? What authority assigns vulgarity to the term arising from a shipping acronym (Shipment High In Transit), and leaves “feces” reputable?

We must say, that culture does, and only culture CAN ascribe such attributes. Why? Because the bible doesn’t provide us with tens of thousands of words that are proscribed, as those to whom it’s written are in need of no such restraint, and the bible is not written to those who can only be restrained with the chains of legal verbiage, and neither it’s perspicuity, nor it’s exclusivity of binding moral directive require anything more. There is not one soul reading this who does not know the difference, but those that order their life accordingly, and those who construct specious spiritual pretenses to morally validate their immoral life.

But can you imagine what the bible would look like did it attempt to explicitly list every profane word, in every tongue, every sin, every way in which the fickle disposition of fallen humanity would feel fit to be guilty of it, every possible iteration of crime, etc. etc.? This would change the entire nature of the bible from being written for children of God who are not hiding from but seeking the truth, and morph it into a book attempting to corral lawless humanity into a cage capable of restraining their wickedness, when only regeneration can possibly restrain their wickedness.

And does the want of explicit biblical authority to condemn specific terms of vulgarity make the use of any and all verbiage lawful, such that all the ghetto rappers are now a wholesome option for your children by such a measure, so long as they only tell bible stories with their ribaldry? If this be the case, then profane or pure speech doesn’t even exist. How could they? Both profane and pure speech become pure fictions, and unless the bible is going to give us an exhaustive catalog of 20 plus centuries of each profane word from each human culture, and in each potential language and dialect, then cuss up a blue streak because it’s your biblical liberty, and all  who try to get you to restrain your wicked tongue are legalists, and inhibiting your freedom to be a low-life, a liberty ostensibly purchased for you by the blood of Christ, adding thus the sin of blasphemy to that of profanity. The simple and perspicuous fact is, that unless someone truly is advocating for the lawfulness of all vocabulary, then they themselves are embracing this standard and just drawing the line in a different place. A place that accommodates their own failures and whim, despite knowing full well what profanity is in their own culture.

So, to summarize…. The bible repeatedly commands us to purity of speech, as we have just seen, and as we will continue to see. The bible does not provide us with the big list of 67 thousand profane words from all languages, ages, and cultures that we are to avoid. But let’s think about what that means, please. The bible commands you to observe a pattern of speech which it does not define because it is making the assumption that a definition is unnecessary, at least for those to whom it is written. If you’re not delusional you are entirely well apprised of what profanity is, and no one needs to tell you, nor is it therefore rational to expect such an enumeration to burden the sacred pages of the bible. That’s all hypocrisy. And if you’re not delusional, and a Christian, you not only know what that standard is, but happily embrace it, because your embrace of the bible as your infallible standard is genuine and sincere, and not something you’re striving to escape from with sophistry and sleight of hand.

This is why the Westminster Confession of Faith plainly states, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (WCF 1.6) Those who wish to make the bible into an exhaustive list of all moral cases and conditions, and who seek thus to disallow all duties deduced from inference are not just “non-confessional”, but are rather plainly not trying to seek freedom in God, but are seeking freedom from God.

And we see this exact same taunting Ishmael disposition in worldly Christians on a dozen other matters as well. Unless the bible lists their sin by name, they’ll not be restrained. Can you imagine what such a bible would even look like? Consider this profoundly insightful and well-articulated paragraph from John Witherspoon. (Yes, the Presbyterian Minister who was a signer of the Declaration of Independence) He’s dealing with the exact same sort of libertine wielding the exact same argument, only dealing with a different moral failure. That of patronizing the stage, (or cinema/tv in our day):

“It is also proper here to obviate a pretense in which the advocates of the stage greatly glory, that there is no express prohibition of it to be found in Scripture. I think a countryman of our own (Mr. Anderson) has given good reasons to believe that the apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 5. ver. 4. by “filthiness, foolish talking, and jesting,” intended to prohibit the plays that were then in use. He also thinks it probable that the word (Strong’s #2970) used in more places than one, and translated “reveling,” points at the same thing. Whether his conjectures are just or not, it is very certain that these, and many other passages, forbid the abuses of the stage; and if these abuses be inseparable from it, as there is reason to believe, there is needed no other prohibition of them to every Christian. Nay, if they never had been separated from it till that time, it was sufficient, and it would be idle to expect that Scripture should determine this problematical point, Whether they would be so in any after age. To ask that there should be produced a prohibition of the stage, as the stage, universally, is to prescribe to the Holy Ghost, and to require that the Scripture should not only forbid sin, but every form in which the restless and changeable dispositions of men shall think fit to be guilty of it, and every name by which they shall think proper to call it.”[6]

But of course, in our case, profanity absolutely and repeatedly is forbidden in the bible, and it still doesn’t matter, and the pretense entirely exposed as mendacious moral posturing. So hardened have the hearts of our age become, it will matter not at all until the 67,000 iterations of each profane word will be found in the bible for them! What a bizarre tincture of stupidity, presumption, profligacy, and moral blindness could even think this way? Who will aver that the bible can’t just say fornication is forbidden, without naming each and every degenerate act of fornication? I can just hear the modern libertine, “Whose to say that just because you think that’s fornication that the bible forbids it. Where is that act named in the bible?” No one does that though, right? Because everyone knows what acts of fornication are. Uh… just like they understand what profanity is. When it comes to their beloved profanity Eph. 5:3-4 isn’t enough. They want the list. Ephesians 5:3-4 points out obscenity of speech explicitly. Do your own diligence and study what the words there used mean. The passage is referencing obscene speech.[7] Choose your lexicon… it references verbal obscenities, and then commands that such sins be not named once among the brethren, and says that for such causes the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience. But suddenly they can’t tell what profanity is. Perhaps the consequences may make it clear.

Here is the bible rule: How does it deal with such topics? With grave discretion and modesty? Or with floods of gratuitous ribald? Who doesn’t know how to answer that question? Who, that has not literally lost their mind, would use the bible as the example that vindicates their profane tongue? Any genuine Christian will recognize that the scriptures do oblige them to embrace purity of speech as a duty, and to eschew unwholesome speech as a vice, and will reckon themselves happily obliged to observe such boundaries, because their profession of subjection to God and to Scripture is not for show, but is truth and followed in sincerity, despite all lapse and failure. Because for the godly, it’s not the imposing inconvenience upon their unregenerate taste that it irresistibly appears to be those yet ruled by their passions.
And, as hinted above, here also is the biblical rule: Where in the bible do you find a reference to dung as meaning anything but dung? Sex, as meaning anything but sex? In one of the conversations referenced above the common vulgarity for feces was used as an expletive, and in no way referencing the literal thing itself, and was vehemently defended as such, ostensibly by the bible, gaining the assent of all present but myself. But….. where do you find that in the bible? Chapter and verse, please, for the use of gratuitous profane expletives? Absolutely nowhere. Because the bible is not a profane book, and neither exemplifies, condones, nor allows profane speech, being written for and by a holy people who fear God and eschew evil. The bible references such matters only in relating facts of human life, and never in a single instance as gratuitous expletive. Never, not once. Not ever.

But do you care? Has this incontrovertible fact changed your opinion? If it has, you have some claim left of sincerity. If it hasn’t, the fact is that you simply don’t care about the bible, it is not your standard of life, and you use the bible merely as a symbolic icon and accoutrement with which to adorn your godless life with mere Christian symbolism, so as to afford it the appearances of sanctity, because you have no intention of seeking to conform your life to it’s perspicuous examples and commands. Jesus is not Lord of your heart. Your depraved disposition is. You yet despise God and loath his righteous way in which He leads His people.

And here is a bible principle, put in colloquial terms: “If it’s new it ain’t true: If it’s true it ain’t new.” Where have believers ever lived in so abandon a manner throughout the church’s history, who were not accounted scandalous, if not false for that sake? Novelty makes the assumption that throughout twenty generations of Christian confessors, no one got it right until you and your generation arrived to enlighten them. The long march of Christendom couldn’t get it right without your superior insight into… the lawfulness of ribaldry. In one such conflict over this subject a social media “friend” remonstrated to me that they couldn’t accept such “puritanical” traditions. (A person who embraced reformed soteriology, mind you!)

Besides being an “argumentum ad hominem”, it’s also oblivious to the novelty of their presumption…. Pray do tell what tradition you are from that historically does so dishonor the name of Christ in the world with profanity of speech? Tell us the spiritual tradition that is full of low-life gutter speech, so we can know there’s a genuine established tradition within the pale of Christendom! Please do inform! Oh the stupendous idiocy of such a comment! Oblivious to the reality that there is no such tradition, other than that which they are attempting to leave, and if they leave it successfully it will only be judged by future generations as being scandalous by those that follow, just like the past history has. Such persons simply supply by imagination what is wanting in the tangible world, because they’ve forsaken the faith of the scriptures and of all history, and will have their way of life regardless of any sanctifying influence from any quarter whatever.

 So determined and immovable are such persons to continue in this vice that they will commonly add to the above concoction, the inane moral inversion of esteeming those who are happy to observe such biblical mandates as being in bondage, and those who hate the restraints of the bible and who cannot abide them, as being “free”. So…. Being free from the bible is liberty, and being happily subject to it’s precepts is… bondage. In other words… they have basically the same disposition as … an atheist, as this is exactly how they view the bible. Atheists, however, are not so deluded as to imagine that their disposition is a Christian one. As I’ve often said, Obedience is not a burden, sin is. Sin is not liberty, obedience is. What a man counts to be his bondage, and what he counts to be his freedom tells you everything about the man. Are you a free man? Or still in the chains of your passions, being yet in the kingdom of darkness, untranslated as yet into the kingdom of God’s dear son? (Col.1:13) Why would something wholesome and good appear burdensome and ridiculous to any genuinely Christian man?

Examples of Profane “Christian” “Leaders”

It will be, perhaps, profitable at this point to advert to examples of this extenuated hypocrisy. Much of what these examples advocate has already been refuted, but the more it’s exposed the better.

Paul Tripp

First, consider the example of Paul Tripp. Mr. Tripp spends several minutes in the video linked in the footnote, attempting to prove that vocabulary is not what is forbidden in the bible, but only intention. If rightly intended, he avers, you may use whatever degree or type of profanity you please. He says this on John Piper’s YouTube channel.

Quoting from his video, “What Makes Bad Language Bad?” [8], Mr. Tripp makes the following statement: “The bible doesn’t define wholesome communication in a vocabulary way, the bible defines wholesome communication in an intentioned way….. So I imagine that if I could say %#*^ to you in a way that would give you grace, I’d say it”. He repeats this profanity multiple times throughout the video, and relates how, after teaching his children his profanity, “My son says, ‘No %#*^’, my daughter says, ‘This cake is %#*^’, my other son says, ‘This whole conversation is just %#*^’, at which he claimed he was laughing hysterically, “because they got the point all too well”. But I thought the point was that only intention to minister grace determined propriety? Perhaps Mr. Tripp is edified by such ribaldry from his children, and so imagines the end is gained. But what sane individual would count his son or daughter saying that to them as “ministering grace”? Thus his standard; thus his “grace”. This generation of religionists are only this… a lost generation.

So, what reply will we make to this individual? Read to the end of this article and you’ll see a list of scriptures which overtly contradict his asinine claim that the bible assigns no moral character to vocabulary. But just for starters, “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord my strength and my redeemer”, would be one, (Ps.19:14), among many others. Some words are unacceptable, just like some thoughts are. And these are as the two wings of a plane, and the regenerate man knows well enough that while you can clean the outside, and not the inside, yet you will never clean the inside and leave the outside unaltered. Such as make a theology out of divorcing these two necessities are missionaries of the devil to God’s church. As Charles Spurgeon once said, “If there is no visible difference between you and the world, depend upon it, there is no invisible difference.”

 But further, does “purity” of speech, and “sound speech that cannot be condemned” include the lowlife expletives advocated by such ministerial imposters? If the bible talks about “dung”, then guess what? It’s talking about dung, not just indulging in vile expletives because the heart is filled with profanity and must therefore find its way out. (Mat.12:34) Further, what definition of “purity” includes the ribaldry advocated? Who believes such absurd claims as that such talk is consistent with commands of purity of speech?

Doug Wilson

Or let us consider yet another example of this reprobate logic in Mr. Doug Wilson, found in the link in this footnote.[9] Consider this lengthy dialogue of Mr. Wilson justifying his calling some reprobate woman a common obscenity, objectively signifying the female private parts, though used by Mr. Wilson as a vulgar expletive. He literally attempts to make the case that if people object to his use of common vulgarities, then it can only mean that they remain unawakened to the outrage he was reproving. Evidently one can only render adequate reproof of demented perverts or register sufficient outrage of evil, but by being a profane lowlife themselves. Because he attempts to make the case that if you object to extenuated evils in articulate standard English, then you are blind to its demerit. But if you object by being yourself a lowlife, then you are plainly enlightened. Plainly, however, being blinded to one evil is no demonstration that you are awakened to others, but such as reprove both lowlifes, and not just one, are the only awakened souls contemplated. So, forgive the extensive citation below, but it is highly insightful into the demented thought processes of the modern religionist pulpiteer.

“Interviewer: In your blog on the Lutheran Jezebel lady, you used the “c-word”. How come? What gives?
“Wilson: What gives… the reason I did that was to provoke questions like this one. So whoever it was, well done, on asking the question. So this is what it boils down to; there’s another c-word that is involved, and that is “Camel”. The camel that we’re currently engaged in swallowing, while straining out gnats. The reason I used that obscenity is obviously for shock value. I didn’t do it thoughtlessly. I did it as a way of grabbing people by the shoulders and saying, can you see where we are? Can you see what we’re doing? Can you see what’s happening? Can’t you see what’s going down?

“So basically, I was summarizing and taking to the bottom line the behavior of that Lutheran pastor, Nadia Bolz Weber, who’s made headlines by commending porn, specifically if it’s ethically sourced porn. And a number of people had donated their purity rings, and she had melted them down and had a small bowling trophy, sort of a model of female genitalia as a trophy, that she presented to Gloria Stienem in this presentation. So you’ve got this outrageous Lutheran theologian lady pastorette, presenting this award to Gloria Steinem.

“And I said, what your doing is you’re reducing femininity to that. Right? That’s what you’re doing. You’ve said this is the symbol. This is the symbol, like the women’s march with the pussy hats. You’re reducing everything, your argument, your moral authority, your appeal, everything reduces to the fact that you have a vagina. Right? And, because we’re living in absurd times, that’s not even good enough anymore. So now there’s the bumper sticker, “not all women have vaginas”. So now we’ve got the trans thing that we are dealing with because all of us are going down the worm hole. So this is where we are, going down the worm hole. People need to read a book. They need to get out more. They need to realize what human societies are capable of being like. 

“There have been public parades in the past, pagan parades, where a giant phallus is paraded through the streets. There have been periods in the church’s history. There was one period among the Moravians … subsequently they called it the dark times, or the troubled times … but they went down a crazy road, and they had services where they had a model of a giant vulva and people were parading through it, and people are capable of that kind of perverse celebration. Now, the thing that’s new, alright, is if in the half time at the super bowl they had a giant vulva on the fifty-yard line, and they told all the citizens of America they had to parade through it, there would be the evangelical contingent appealing to Romans 13 saying we’ve got to obey the existing authorities.

 “And lets say some punk teenage sophomore, said, Mom, why do we have to march through the giant c-word?  Someone would say farther up in the line, “Young man I’ll remind you that there are ladies present! The objection just reveals that we have absolutely no clue… absolutely no clue what’s going down.”

But it’s Mr. Wilson who has no idea “what’s going down”. Because “what’s going down” is, that we have here a man representing himself as a legitimate minister of the gospel making a public case for vulgarity, and that is more of a threat to the church than Nadia Weber, or Gloria Steinem gathering purity rings from the apostate children of Christians. The sin that Christians justify, and especially that the representatives of the church justify, is a far greater danger to the people of God than some abandoned reprobate like Nadia Weber, because she will never be listened to, but Wilson will be, and thus does something these would never have accomplished: Getting Christians to behave like his lowlife self with conscience. That’s “what’s going down”, and he is in fact a ringleader of it, while posturing as one trying to save you from degeneracy, which you plainly don’t understand… unless you are profane and defend profanity.

Wilson then goes on about how other Deformed Theologians had pampered this witch by taking her seriously (White Horse Inn) and how this makes his being profane lawful. Well, that makes perfect sense. It’s clear as mud in your eye. Then he continues: “So the reaction I’ve seen, absolutely nobody has engaged with the point. It’s like Gasp! He cussed! Well, I didn’t cuss, I used a graphic term”. A term he just prior had called an “obscenity”. But that’s not cussing. It’s merely, “graphic”… though it was said with zero reference to the meaning of the word he used, but used only as the typical lowlife ribald expletive, and there are far better insults for such demonic groomers. Like “demonic groomers”. (Ooops! I just “engaged” the subject he said no one engaged.)

But Mr. Wilson’s argument amounts but to this: If someone is guilty of a greater sin, lesser one’s become lawful. That is quite literally the argument he just made. And if such profane references are no sin, then why does he abstain from using them in this interview? Its identical to when fellow corrupters Mark Driscoll or Jeff Durbin made their “apologia” for the lawfulness of ribald. Both meticulously avoided the profanity they were advocating for. But if such language is lawful, why does he cease? If unlawful, nothing makes it lawful. To employ a parallel, if someone is citing unmentionable Talmudic blasphemies of Jesus, then would this render it lawful to merely take his name in vain in a more common way?[10] According to Mr. Wilson, objecting to the lesser blasphemy would be “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”.

At the heart of Wilson’s vulgarity apologetic is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to dress his detestation of biblical holiness as some sort of genuine care for the honor of God. Because everyone knows that calling some despicable reprobate an obscenity will honor God, and will wake up the church. But if waking up to one despicable reprobate is good, then waking up to two is better. This advocacy of lawlessness is frequently a topic for Mr. Wilson, whether defending degenerate music, cinema, language, or whatever.

In another video defending his debauchery Mr. Wilson affirms that only Scripture rules the conscience, not your Victorian Great-grandmother[11]. But of course scripture repeats such prohibitions of degenerate speech dozens of times, but because it doesn’t list every possible instance, Mr. Wilson is deaf. And it’s quite telling that he didn’t say, “Only Scripture rules the conscience, not the modern lowlife hipster.” For he thus informs us where he thinks the excess is, and it’s in the heartbeat of his own (thus vainly) professed Reformed communion, altogether historically equal to Victorianism for the biblical ethics he detests and constantly agitates against.

So as not to look like an entirely abandoned advocate of all profaneness, Mr. Wilson attempts to draw a contrast between those who exceed godliness, and those who are only profane, after his undefined measure. Mr. Wilson:

“So… There is evil speaking, allot of it, and there’s more of it than there ought to be in our midst. So, we need to talk about all of that. On the one hand we have sanctimonious pietists who have an idea that the libraries of heaven contain a list of prohibited words, and then on the other hand we have the phenomenon of cussing pastors. People who say, ‘I’m free in Christ, and I can pop off however I want”. So lets consider this. God is the speaker of the word. He is the Logos Himself. God is, in the first instance the teller of stories, He is the teller of stories, He has spoken Himself in His word, and He has spoken outside of Himself in this universe. Everything you see around you is God’s spoken word. There is therefore, not anything which He does not speak.”[12]

So what? Godliness is being, like God, Whom we now are assured that “there is not anything that He does not speak”? Forgetting for a moment the question of what this makes of men by being “godly”, consider the far greater problem of… what this makes of God. What conclusion can we make of this, but that God is a profane blasphemer? What deranged child of hell says something like that? There is “not anything that He does not speak”. Thus his standard. Thus his god.

Except that he just gave us another standard, far less defined. On the one hand we have “sanctimonious pietists” who think there’s a heavenly library of profane words, and on the other, those who exceed propriety who think they can “pop off however they want”. Like God. And somewhere in between we have the golden mean where Mr. Wilson abides in his lawful profanity, with plausible deniability when he’s blamed for an immoral standard. Behold what a hell it takes to render their practice normative!  

Wilson tries on the one hand to parry the appearance that he’s being a scandalous lowlife by making this contrast between those who think everything is profane and pastors who think they can pop off however they want, but that’s him. He mocks the idea that there are libraries in heaven with a register of each bad word, and yet he must have this golden mean in hand, else he’s either a pietist or a libertine by his own confession. But be assured, heaven doesn’t have this list. Mr. Wilson does right here on Earth. And who’s the gnostic here?

Mr. Wilson next proceeds to place all “inappropriate speech” into four categories[13]. Vulgarity, obscenity, cursing, and swearing. He confidently lets us know that all four of these types of “inappropriate speech” are forbidden…. and that are all lawful too. Mr. Wilson: “The problem for the Platonists is that there are godly examples of all four, found within the pages of scripture. The problem for the libertines is that the bible prohibits speaking in all four categories. … so what are you going to do? Well, you’re going to have to put on your big boy pants and study your bible.”  Because if you study your bible like Mr. Wilson, you’ll easily see all the “godly” uses of “inappropriate speech”!!! I have a meme of wolves playing leap frog over the backs of sheep, with a caption that says something like… “They don’t even have to hide any more”. I think someone had just listened to this sermon when they made that meme.

This is as far as I endured Mr. Wilson. Doubtless had I listened to the remainder of the sermon it would have become clear to me how all four categories of “inappropriate speech” can be “godly”. And ungodly. But I have no doubt his grotesque misapplication of scripture in such instances will be like all these others, and in particular, that he will do what these libertines always do, and that’s conflate subject with vocabulary, imagining that because a mere subject is obscene or private by nature, that the inspired authors all dealt with it in the most profane vocabulary possible. But I doubt Mr. Wilson will be up for putting on his big boy britches and face the fact that there isn’t a “godly” way of using “inappropriate speech”, and if people cursed others in a godly way, it was not inappropriate speech, nor forbidden, and etc. If people made oaths, it was in a lawful way, or it was not inappropriate speech! If they spoke of obscene or vulgar subjects, it was not with obscene inappropriate language! This is the double talk of the heretic who is not simply justifying his own personal profaneness, but attempting to mainstream it to the church of Jesus. May the Lord deliver His people from him, and all like him.

Let the reader be actually awakened here… Wilson is railing at all Christians of history as “sanctimonious uptight Christians”, but posturing as though it were only reproving eccentric legalists of modernity. He’s making an apologetic for a degeneracy that is unique to a modern imposter clique that thinks it’s God’s church, yet ignorantly condemning every name of history that you know, who have all repudiated his libertine apologetic. Because his apologetic is against them all, and he’s pretending it’s just against modern legalists with a bee in their bonnet over harmless indulgences. Mr. Wilson is a Zimri, making his case for polluting Christ’s church, and is its enemy. (Num.25) And that’s “what’s going down” that you need to be aware of.

And which of my readers has ever heard of such an apologetic of ribald speech? Who of the multitudes of believers through the history of the church has ever made such an apology? Name them. But you can’t. Because there weren’t any. Unless you care to quote the church’s debauched enemies. Which is precisely what Mr. Wilson is. Go read the citations appended to this article, to hear what God’s people have always said about the biblical restraints upon such potty-mouthed hypocrites. Richard Baxter’s first remedy for this sin is that such persons become Christians. I agree with him. My wife remembers kids in her public school getting suspended for using vulgar speech, and today you have those who idiotically count themselves to be conservative Christian leaders not only using, but making public defense of their vulgarity. And no one realizes the revolution that has taken place. This is the “what’s going down” that the Church needs to be awakened to.

And doubtless the Victorian ethics that Mr. Wilson appears so concerned might influence the modern world, emerged from a grossly darkened age of the 1800’s, unlike our own age where the church’s witness and shining example has restrained the world to obedience! And doubtless none of the sages of the Victorian period had any regard for scripture, and their scriptural arguments were all appeals to their personal authority. This is constantly the imputation attempted when any such appeal is made.

But the persons of the godly of history are appealed to, not as proof of any proposition, but in hopes that people who claim to revere them might be the more willing to hear their biblical arguments. But if their biblical arguments are all a mere appeal to tradition, then so are modern appeal to biblical argument, indeed all appeal to biblical argument. Such men make such bizarre arguments simply to avoid detection as the complete imposters and anomalies to the way God’s people have understood scripture, and that no one in fact ever believed like them before, but the church’s foes. And that’s still true. We just don’t realize it.

According to Mr. Wilson the mainstreaming of his vulgarity as an expedient of teaching is the necessary means to awaken a generation to the evils of despicable groomers like Nadia Weber, and defending it publicly is what will help us all to see that his example of degeneracy is the right way of the Lord. We may safely be assured that the dozens of instances of vulgar speech being prohibited in the bible is a moot point. Because Mr. Wilson said so. And also tells us to only follow the bible, not men. We await the part of the defense that shows that these prohibitions only count, unless someone is being even more profane in the conversation. Then his obscenity (his choice of noun) is holiness to the Lord. 

But since we’re not given the list, in scripture, of the seventy-two thousand proscribed words, then he cannot and will not hear those scriptures that merely tell him not to be a lowlife gutter mouth. Though they’re imperatives. Such as the dozens provided at the end of this article. Because Mr. Wilson is a Pharisee, and while pretending to great concern about what the bible commands, makes a grand apologetic for defying it, with grounds as far fetched as that of any first-century Pharisee.

In yet another video[14] Mr. Wilson makes the following statement: “Now when it comes to cussing, a lot of Christians are either surreptitious Platonists, thinking that the library of heaven, and the librarians of heaven, keep an official register up there of bad words, and then it’s a sin for us to say any of those words ever.” But no, that is Mr. Wilson’s doctrine. But he imagines that this “register” of “bad words” is not only preserved in the library of heaven, but in the earth too, given to us in the bible. All zero of them. Because if it’s not listed there, then it’s all our “Christian” “liberty”, and the bible doesn’t list them. It just tells us not to use them. Because those actually sincere know what they all are. And thus the limits of scripture he imagines to hold himself accountable to.

But since the bible only says things like “The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness.” (Pr.10:32) And like, “A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.” (Pro 15:4 KJV) And like, “Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.” (Pro 4:24 KJV) And like, “But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” (2Ti 2:16 KJV) And like, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” (Eph 4:29 KJV) Because it only says such perfectly obvious things which every single reader is perfectly aware what exact words are being referred to, who doesn’t need or ask for the legal verbiage of the lawless, therefore he’ll be like the demoniac that no man can chain, rather than like the soft-ground believer who is given understanding by the Holy Spirit and receives the words of God. (Mat.13)

Jeff Durbin

The video here footnoted[15] is of Jeff Durbin preaching in a church meeting, and who starts out protesting about how strict he is in his home to never speak profanely, and how shocked his children would be to hear him use any sort of profanity. Which he then proceeds to utter from the pulpit before a gathered Christian assembly. (5:15 mark) The shock of his profanity is lost in his manifest oblivion to so glaring a contradiction. Follow the link, and you’ll be going… “does he really not see it?”  Apparently this created quite a stir, some reprimanding him (Protestia, Pyromaniacs), and some validating his disregard for scriptural commands of decency of speech, such as on Joel Webbon’s “Right Response Ministries” youtube channel.[16] In this interview not only is Durbin encouraged in his profanity, but is platformed for a lengthy defense of it, basically consisting of a claim of how necessary it is to be profane if the thing your reproving is very evil. Of course, the Christian mind counts the necessary thing to be scriptural commands, and there’s always that obscure option that Mr. Durbin could learn standard English, which some uptight people feel is able to emphasize theological points didactically without ribaldry or vulgarity. This appears to be a bizarre and legalistic concept to both interviewer and interviewee.

But let’s consider this interview in some detail. Here is the text of Joel Webbon interviewing Jeff Durbin in regard to his profanity from the pulpit at the 2020 “Fight, Laugh, Feast” conference[17], where Jeff Durbin was reproving Woke heresies …. with pulpit profanity, all tatted up in his T-shirt. After Mr. Webbon announces that he’d like to title the interview “A Theology of Bull****”, he goes on to say,

“Bull**** is a term that you used back in the fall of 2020 last year at the ‘Fight, Laugh, Feast’ conference… I was there, I got to meet you in person …  I’m grateful for your ministry, I thought your sermon was one of the better sermons that I’ve heard, I thought that it was absolutely necessary to use such strong language, because we’re talking about not just something that’s distracting from the gospel, but a false gospel that’s in direct opposition to the gospel of Jesus that replaces repentance with penance … there’s no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus, but there is forever condemnation for those in the woke church… the way you addressed it was wonderful… Marxism, Wokism, all that stuff, and so I just wanted to give you a chance to help our listeners understand, as it relates to the pulpit, the need, at times, for a serrated edge, and even crude, seemingly crude, language, sparingly, but at times… so will you give us your reasons and your defense for why you said what you said.”

Durbin then replies by giving a very nice summary and overview of the Fabian character of Frankfurt School Marxism, and continues thus:

Why would Jeff Durbin, who does not cuss, and doesn’t speak like this, why would he use that term at a conference, why? And my answer is because of the nature of the case. Because of the nature of this soul-destroying doctrine. Because of the nature of the gospel-destroying doctrine. Because of the nature of the church-destroying doctrine. You do see in scripture, throughout, and in a show like this it wouldn’t even come close to being able touch all the places in scripture that we could demonstrate. Scripture sometimes uses far more dramatic language than you heard me use at the Fight, Laugh, Feast, conference.

“As a matter of fact, I had to confess days after, that I faced a little bit of cowardice. I had written in my notes some verses I was going to read from that I thought as I was going through it, if I add this it may be a little too heavy. But I resisted preaching what is directly in scripture, word for word because I felt in that moment a tinge of cowardice. I’m afraid to say this right now. Scripture uses some very harsh, dramatic language when dealing with soul destroying ideologies. You see this in Jesus, Jesus Who is God incarnate, He is the Holy One, He is perfect, and He is righteous, He confronts the kind of soul-destroying sinful behavior that we’re talking about, say with the Pharisees in Mat. Chapter 23, when He pronounces the seven woes, the seven woes upon the Pharisees and the leadership in Jerusalem. He uses language against them that is not the meek and mild Jesus; it’s not the Jesus that you see in the paintings, you know, holding a lamb, and as my fellow-pastor says, pastor James, there is a place for that portrait of Jesus, the good shepherd that holds the lamb.

“But that is not the whole picture of Jesus. Jesus is the one who goes into the temple to cleanse it twice, to purify God’s house, and does things there, that.. let’s be honest … if He did it in the modern era it would definitely roll over a lot of people’s sensitivities, and they would say, Jesus Your not being very Christ-like. Jesus spoke to people who were destroying people’s souls in ways that were honest, and in ways that were graphic. And if you want sort of a highlight, I use it in the sermon, and I built a case for it before I even did it, before I even said what I said. Ezekiel uses language that…let me just say this, in some of Ezekiel’s descriptions of the harlot wife of God, you won’t find very many sermons working through that expositionally.

“Talking about his wife is such a harlot that she looks for lovers with the biggest members, who ejaculate like horses, I think is the word. That’s some pretty dramatic and graphic language and imagery that you’re such a harlot that you are different that other harlots and other prostitutes, in that you go and you offer yourself to all these other surrounding nations to commit sexual immorality, with them, this covenant unfaithfulness, this disobedience, and you offer yourself to them, but your different than other prostitutes because they get paid for what they do, and you never asked for payment.

“And you look for lovers with the biggest members … look, that’s a way to soften the language. We know what that means. This is how God describes a church, His covenant people, who are walking in unfaithfulness, they’re disobeying God, they’re abandoning God, and He says, You’re such a slut that you offer yourself to everybody, you don’t get paid for what you do, I made you beautiful, and you went off and played the harlot with everybody, and you’re so… He tries to express her lustfulness for sin to such a degree He says, You’re like that slut that is so far gone that she’s looking for the lovers with the biggest (mouths a word) and who ejaculate so much. That’s graphic! And that’s in God’s holy inspired word.”

This passage from Durbin is incomprehensibly blind. He cites passages of scripture that indeed speak of lewd matters, but with discretion, and yet takes such instances for ostensible examples of his profanity without discretion. Imagine what Ezekiel 23 would have read like had it truly been profane, like Durbin’s sermon!  Durbin fully concedes this himself, confessing that God thus “softens” his language in scripture, leaving the exact meaning to intuition. Yet such arguments are all tendered to prove that God is profane like himself, who didn’t thus “soften” his language, except when on the back foot and trying to justify himself to a Christian audience. And it’s not exactly difficult to assess that God not only “softens” his language in such a passage as Eze. 23, but as well never uses profane words as expletives like Durbin did, but only as signifying what the discreet choice of words really means. And none of this crosses his mind that this is not at all what he did. There is zero parallel between Durbin and Ezekiel, or anywhere else in scripture.

Perhaps his most amusing moment is his first line of response… “Why would Jeff Durbin, who does not cuss, and doesn’t speak like this, why would he use that term at a conference?” Which amounts to just this: Why would Jeff Durbin cuss when he doesn’t? This is how he starts his defense of his own profanity. It’s just like the sermon itself, where he says how shocked his children would be to ever hear him use profane speech, which he then proceeds to use before an entire Christian congregation while ostensibly preaching God’s word. I mean, is the guy brain-damaged, or just spiritually blinded by his perverse advocacy?

He next charges God and Jesus Christ with profanity… so no mystery if he’s given over to blindness. He claims that God used profanity in Eze. 23 and that Jesus in Mat. 23. (Though he provides no supposed profane example from Mat.23) And, Joel Webbon, after affirming this debauchery to be “absolutely necessary” in the introduction, enunciates his unqualified assent to the above extrapolations of Mr. Durbin’s degeneracy.

We also can see from this apologetic just how deficient and incapacitated John Owen, George Whitefield, and Charles Spurgeon, were in eschewing wicked speech, thus hindering their ability to rightly save the church from soul-destroying doctrines, because, as both Webbon and Durbin advocate, this is a great necessity to reprove heresy. But wait… that’s not fair. The reproof must be given, not to just these few, but to the entire church of history, which has also been thus radically impaired by its failure and want of faithfulness to confront soul-damning ideologies of their day with this biblical method of profanity, and of all absurd things, reproving it instead of saving the world with it.

How hindered these otherwise great men were by their neglect! Look at how perverse their world was compared to ours, which our grave spirituality has now sanctified, having thus saved it from the pietistic Gnosticism of their forebearers! What might they have accomplished had they only been set free from pietistic traditions, and to have been cutting edge hipsters that employ the more biblical methodology of sophomoric gutter speech in their preaching! Had they but added lasers and smoke machines they doubtless would have brought about the millennium! Because when the case is dire… profanity is the bible way! Just like the bible says in Mat. 23, and Eze. 23, apparently. Except for the dozens of places it forbids such speech. Which no one ever talks about.

Durbin thus attempts to makes the same point as Wilson above, that if something you are reproving is really, really bad, profanity becomes a sine quo non to adequately communicate its demerit… otherwise you’re just a milque-toast pietist… just like all those they claim as their fathers in the faith. Somehow, through some deficiency or other, none of the saints of history ever recognized this absolute necessity or advantage.

Like Driscoll, Wilson, Tripp or nearly any other of the open advocates for being profane, Durbin is confounding the issue of indecent subject matter with that of indecent vocabulary, when any subject may be spoken of discreetly and appropriately, or with indecency and excess. They assume that just because a topic may be profane, that the manner of its verbal expression is as well, and they hide their perverse and vulgar vocabulary behind the bible’s mere expressions of a perverse topic, despite its doing so with modesty, ultimately thus accusing God, Christ Jesus, and the inspired writers as being alike perverted as themselves.

Such apologists appear to imagine that no decent Christian has ever read the bible before, and had gasped in shock when they heard Eze.23 read to them for the first time by this tatted hipster, imagining that a godly man will be as incapable as themselves to detect any difference between the discretion of divinely inspired writings, and the vile excesses of the unregenerate tongue. As if godly men and women who hear their perverted advocacy will immediately break into shouts of profanity at the new revelation that the bible actually talked about sexually perverse topics. Who knew?

This point, however, has already been adequately demonstrated earlier in this piece.  But is it just Joel Webbon that hears such nonsense and finds agreement? Does one have to be seminary-lobotimized to affirm the perversity here, or is the entire generation given over to this reprobate mind? For blindness, this is on the order of magnitude of teaching that taking money out of the treasury to kill Jesus is ethical, but putting it into the treasury is verboten. (Mat.27:6)

Mark Driscoll

In the footnoted video is an example of Mark Driscoll defending his profanity on John Piper’s youtube channel.[18]  What’s humorous about this defense is that Driscoll is on his back foot, and, with little exception, uses none of the language he’s trying to justify as “biblical”. Consider this quotation taken from this video:

“The bible has some very strong language. The opening of Galatians, where he (presumably Paul) tells a bunch of guys that are into circumcision, to go all the way an emasculate themselves… It’s probably not something you’re going to have on the flannelgraph for the children in the Sunday School. Ezekiel telling the Israelites that they’re whoring after certain people and gods because of the size of their genitalia, and the experiences they enjoy… it’s very strong language. When Isaiah says that all our righteousness is like bloody tampons, and Paul says its like a steaming pile that a dog leaves in your yard … the bible is using some very strong language. The question is, is that ok? Well, all scripture is God-breathed, and if that’s how God speaks, then that’s how we should speak.”

So, let’s get the timeline straight. Driscoll is commonly profane in his preaching in an extreme degree. People call him to account for it, so he defends it with the above language, almost all of which uses the polite and genteel verbiage for his explanation, almost none of which is what he was being reproved for. (His dog reference excepted, being profane, and altogether his own invention, and not what Paul said in Phil.3:8) He then does the final sleight of hand, asking if such language is ok. Well sure it’s ok. Because he abandoned all his profane speech he was being reproved for, and used terms no one would have complained about! (Canine commentary excepted).

As has already been elucidated in some detail above, all such matters the bible talks about, and all such matters may be appropriately spoken of by believers, but then, only in the same discreet way the bible universally does, but not in the lowlife gutter speech of the profane enemies of God. And if it’s so biblical, and this is the way God talks, according to Driscoll, then why is he hiding it here? Why all the measured genteel talk? If it’s ok, the cuss it up. Except that he knows full well, and is moderating his own verbiage, not to ruin his defense of immoderate verbiage. But it does in a whole new way. By admission that you have no case, or you wouldn’t be restrained in your defense of not being. 

When such men not only occupy positions of leadership in modern churches, and maintain their office and respect among many, it’s a glaring evidence that the church has lost its character, it’s fidelity to scripture, it’s biblical manhood and mettle. It has nothing. We’re running on empty when such deplorable fakes not only strut in the open with their profane life, but make their public apology for it to further pervert the church in tandem with themselves.

One More

But we are not quite done. We have now to crest the summit of this wickedness. I will not burden the reader with another lengthy citation, but with a link that may be followed if desired. Thus far we have considered the evil of being profane and vulgar, but not of being blasphemous. But here we will briefly consider the summit of our modern descent into evil speaking and its defense by considering the defense of blasphemy by Doug Wilson. We have just dealt with him above, but it seemed best to leave this one most extreme example till last… Wilson’s advocacy of blasphemy. In the following video[19] Wilson makes the following case for being a blasphemer. A summary proceeds as follows.

Wilson relates that he wrote a “fictional piece” for Credenda/Agenda Magazine depicting an unregenerate man going hiking, falling down and injuring himself, and then blaspheming the name of Jesus, and then later using the name in honor and reverence, having fictionally found the Lord and His salvation. The problem is that he doesn’t simply describe it, as I just did, but he repeats it in that peculiar inflection of the blasphemer, using that sacred Name as an expletive. And this is all supposed to be ok, because it’s done but “in character” for a short story.

So, no one is saying that it would be sin to relate such an event by way of mere description, and if it is, then I just sinned in relating it. It’s the fact that he speaks this blasphemy in his own person in his public defense of his story, assuring us that it’s all made lawful, by reason of being stated in the person of a fictional character, showing thus very candidly exactly what was intended in the short story, which was fully confessed by Mr. Wilson.

But it were one thing to merely explain what the “character” did or said, but quite another to speak that sacred Name in that expletive tone, which Wilson did here[20], and here[21]. He doesn’t, thus, merely describe someone else’s blasphemy, he repeats it. He also does this in the first of the footnotes referencing this video just above, but not quite as overtly. In the fictional piece he describes, the tone pretty much had to be represented as a blasphemy, because Wilson himself confesses it to be so, and defends it as such. Despite his average follower being the “Jung, Reckless & Deformed” type, someone still wrote in and justly complained of his blasphemy in this article, which he defended, upon the following grounds.

1 That it’s no more to participate in the sin of blasphemy by building a literary fictional character who blasphemes, than it makes one complicit in theft to relate a fictional character who steels.

2 That the Westminster Larger Catechism signifies that not only speaking God’s name dishonorably is a violation of the third commandment, but as well speaking it honorably, (such as in prayer), but in hypocrisy is likewise there specified as taking God’s Name in vain. In proof of this Mr. Wilson cites the instance of Jesus preaching of the “fictional story” of the Pharisee from Luke 18:9-14 who took God’ s name in vain by praying in hypocrisy. So ostensibly, Mr. Wilson did nothing more or less than what Jesus did.

This perverse advocacy of blasphemy has already been refuted just above. But let’s go further. Firstly, Mr. Wilson’s sincerity must be commended, in that when he relates the story he does not attempt to conceal the blasphemous nature of the case, but pronounces the name of Jesus Christ himself, as can be heard by anyone with a computer, as an expletive, and with that peculiar tone that constitutes blasphemy, without trying to put some harmless face upon the case. The reader is encouraged to follow the references to appreciate this fact.

But please soberly consider the following reply to his two points of defense. First, consider that his appeal to the case of “theft” is a perspicuous category error. We need but point out that theft is only committed when something is stolen, and by speaking only if it results in a theft, which no story telling does. Which is not the case with the sin of blasphemy, which can be committed in story telling, or in any number of other ways. So the comparison is moot. This would seem a bit obvious to be missed by Mr. Wilson, except that people often experience blindness when defending their own sin. At the outset, such an appeal attempts to establish an absurd and desperate parallel and one that needs no further reply, than to point out that stealing is never committed when nothing is stolen, but blasphemy is typically committed primarily by speaking alone.  

As for the ostensible parallel with the Pharisee praying in hypocrisy, it need but be pointed out that had this “character’s” blasphemy but been described rather that spoken in character, then not one soul would have objected to it. No, not the most “uptight, sanctimonious” biblical Christian, such as Wilson loathes. Like this: “Bob fell down, became angry, and took the Lord’s name in vain.” Which is, of course, all Jesus did in regard to the Pharisee’s hypocritical prayer. He didn’t repeat it with an attempt to deceive those about him, which alone would constitute that tangential aspect of blasphemy.

Further, the type of blasphemy the Catechism is reproving, in the particular appealed to, is not blasphemy by reason of speech, but blasphemy by reason of hypocrisy, which has precisely zero parallel to Wilson’s case of repeating the blasphemy himself, which is itself the thing primarily forbidden in the command, and which the WLC primarily reproves. Mr. Wilson’s short story, and his description of it, both actually commit the sin of blasphemy because they repeat it, and speak it, in character with all its contempt for God, not just on the mere description of the sin, which descriptions we find in the bible itself, and which Mr. Wilson would be well aware, precisely zero people would actually have complained about.

Suppose that Jesus had told a parable about a man who committed adultery. Would this make it lawful to commit adultery? No? And why not? Because committing adultery would be repeating the thing forbidden, and not just verbally relating an event. But what about when the sin is that of communicating it verbally? Like the sin of blasphemy! What Mr. Wilson is pleading for is the right to commit the actual sin of speaking the blasphemy in the very sense and expletive case, and not just to speak of it, because, as is shown above, this he does here[22], and here[23], and not quite as boldly, here[24]. This is a doctrine of Pharisees.

But he invents such asinine distinctions, not just to vindicate his blasphemy, but to warrant the church in it as well, and, as such, is a perverse and heretical corrupter of the church of God. We are nothing surprised, then, to find that, when Mr. Wilson breaks down unlawful speech into four categories[25], he includes “vulgarity, obscenity, cursing, and swearing”, and completely omits the sin of blasphemy.

I find it deeply disturbing that men who represent themselves as servants of God, and leaders among the flock, can stand up in the midst of a Christian assembly, and make a public case for obscenity, vulgarity, and even blasphemy, and people not only don’t throw them out the door, but approve, and invite them back. One must ask…. where are the men???

Conclusion:

When your manner of speech is indistinguishable from that of the world around you, what sort of testimony do you display of the grace of God to the world, but that of an ostensible example of the reconciliation of Christ and Belial? This is the “gospel” you wish to broadcast? Do you think to display your testimony of faith, hope, and mercy, and genuinely have no perception of the contrariety and contradiction of such a display of verbal uncleanness? When professing Christians spew forth their abhorrent examples of gutter profaneness to the world, they are being worse than complete heretics, who merely brings discredit upon their heresy instead of upon the truth.

It can certainly be said of every Christian without exception that in some measure his testimony is compromised by his sin, and some genuine believers in significant ways. But sin defended and persisted in is wholly another creature, because he defends his wickedness as normative, rather than being embarrassed and ashamed of it as a contradiction to what he loves most, in a sincere battle to conform himself to the image of Christ.

But the apologist for vulgarity displays a genuine friendship with the world, (Jas. 4:4), advocates for a reconciliation between good and evil, and in as much as it’s not done in a moment of weakness, but shamelessly embraced as normative, and vehemently defended against the testimony of the true Church, looks very much like the “enemy of God” James 4 speaks of. He displays a view of sanctification that is so contrary to the bible as to call his profession into question, being thus willing to make this public confession of what walking with God is.  Again, Spurgeon: “If there is no visible difference between you and the world, depend upon it, there is no invisible difference.”

It is a profoundly lamentable state of affairs that in my short lifetime as a believer what was formerly unthinkable for any Christian to speak is now spoken openly in front of each other and a watching world, and those who resist them make themselves a mark for jest and abuse. As for me, their abuse is an honor, as I’d be ashamed to not say anything against it, lest I appear to be of the same degenerate godless character as they, and would be ashamed to have the approbation of such persons. It is shameful and grievous if one has so little jealousy for the honor of God’s truth that they will thus behave in so public a manner. It behooves Christians not only to eschew such repudiation of the fear of God, but to be forward to distinguish themselves in dissent, lest they appear to be of like character when they sit mute under it’s affront. “He heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not.” (Pr. 29:24) As Richard Sibbes once said, “A curse lies upon those that, when the truth suffers, have not a word to defend it.”

You are a professing Christian, yes? Then…. Will you talk with profanity before God the way you do in private, (as though He was not witness)? Will you talk that way before your church? Will you talk that way before your fiancé’s parents, or before a job interviewer? Will you talk that way before a civil judge? Does scripture talk like you do? Has any historical confession of believers ever talked that way? Would Jesus talk that way? If your answer is “yes” to any or all of these queries…. You must ask yourself the question: Exactly who are you, and what makes you think you are a Christian man or woman, or that you should be esteemed anything but a spiritual miscarriage by those who embrace the faith of the bible and walk in sync with the history of its trial in time? Go read the list of scriptures below and…. START.OVER. But if what the bible plainly and repeatedly says has not restrained your lawless life ere now, reading it again is not like to be regarded. But God.


A Few Citations from Godly Authors of Christian History:

Having considered above the degeneracy of false leaders from our own age, consider here by way of contrast a few of the multitude of similar witnesses against the profaneness of man from a past and better day from those that all these spiritual miscarriages like to imagine are their fathers in the faith. Judge of your own selves what similarity you see between those just considered above, and those now considered below.

Matthew Poole:
Let no corrupt communication; unprofitable, unsavoury, not seasoned with the salt of prudence, Colossians 4:6: see Mark 9:50. Vs. 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God; viz. by corrupt communication. The Spirit is said to be grieved when anything is done by us, which, were he capable of such passions, might be matter of grief to him; or when we so offend him as to make him withdraw his comfortable presence from us: see Isaiah 63:10.[26]


Matthew Henry:
“Filthy words proceed from corruption in the speaker, and they corrupt the minds and manners of those who hear them: Christians should beware of all such discourse. It is the duty of Christians to seek, by the blessing of God, to bring persons to think seriously, and to encourage and warn believers by their conversation.”[27]

John Calvin:
V.29. No filthy speech. He first forbids believers to use any filthy language, including under this name all those expressions which are wont to be employed for the purpose of inflaming lust. Not satisfied with the removal of the vice, he enjoins them to frame their discourse for edification. In another Epistle he says, “Let your speech be seasoned with salt.” (Colossians 4:6.) Here a different phrase is employed, if any (speech) be good to the use of edifying, which means simply, if it be useful. … To explain the manner in which this is done, he adds, that it may impart grace to the hearers, meaning by the word grace, comfort, advice, and everything that aids the salvation of the soul.

Vs.30. And grieve not. As the Holy Spirit dwells in us, to him every part of our soul and of our body ought to be devoted. But if we give ourselves up to aught that is impure, we may be said to drive him away from making his abode with us; and, to express this still more familiarly, human affections, such as joy and grief, are ascribed to the Holy Spirit. [151] Endeavour that the Holy Spirit may dwell cheerfully with you, as in a pleasant and joyful dwelling, and give him no occasion for grief. Some take a different view of it, that we grieve the Holy Spirit in others, when we offend by filthy language, or, in any other way, godly brethren, who are led by the Spirit of God. (Romans 8:14.) Whatever is contrary to godliness is not only disrelished by godly ears, but is no sooner heard than it produces in them deep grief and pain. But that Paul’s meaning was different appears from what follows.

By whom ye are sealed. As God has sealed us by his Spirit, we grieve him when we do not follow his guidance, but pollute ourselves by wicked passions. No language can adequately express this solemn truth, that the Holy Spirit rejoices and is glad on our account, when we are obedient to him in all things, and neither think nor speak anything, but what is pure and holy; and, on the other hand, is grieved, when we admit anything into our minds that is unworthy of our calling. Now, let any man reflect what shocking wickedness there must be in grieving the Holy Spirit to such a degree as to compel him to withdraw from us.[28]

Richard Sibbes:
“I am persuaded that your common swearers, and profane wretches think for the time that they have no souls; they think not that there is such an excellent immortal substance breathed into them by God, which must live forever in eternal happiness or endless misery. Did they believe this they would not wound and stain their precious souls as they do.”[29]

And how many such verses from scripture condemn impure speech, the article in the appendix will inform! And each of them inspiring similar words from such commentators.

Richard Baxter

 Special Direction against Filthy, Ribald, Scurrilous Talk.

Direction 1. The chief direction against this filthy sin, is general; to get out of a graceless state, and get a heart that feareth God, and then you dare not Be guilty of such impudency: God is not so despised by those that fear him.

Direction II. Cease not your holy communion with God in his worship, especially in secret, and be not strange to him, and seldom with him. And then you dare not so pollute those lips, that use to speak seriously to God. What! talk of lust and filthiness with that tongue, that spake but even now to the most holy God! God’s name and presence will awe you, and cleanse you, and show you that his temple should not be so defiled, and that he hath not called you to uncleanness but to holiness; and that a filthy tongue is unsuitable to the holy praise of God: but while the rest of your life is nothing but a serving the devil and the flesh, no wonder if ribaldry seem a fit language for you.

Direction IV. Remember what a shame it is to open and proclaim that filthiness of thy heart which thou migntest have concealed. Christ telleth us how to expound thy words, that out of the abundance of thy neart thy mouth speaketh, Luke vi. 45. And what needest thou tell people that it is the rutting-moon with thee, and that lust and filthiness are the inhabitants of thy mind ? If thou be not so far past a” shame as to commit fornication in the open streets, why wilt thou there talk of it.

Direction V. Remember that filthy talk is but the approach t0 filthy acts. It is but thy breaking the shell of modesty, that thou mayst eat the kernel of it and vomit the nut. This is the tendency of it, whether thou intend it or not.

Direction VI. Remember that thou biddest defiance to godliness and honesty: “corrupt communication” grieved the Spirit of God, Eph. iv. 29, 30; v. 4. Canst thou expect that the Holy Ghost should dwell and work in so filthy a room, and with such filthy company? Darest thou go pray or read the Scripture, or speak of any holy thing, with those lips that talk of filthy ribaldry? Dost thou find thyself fit to go to prayer after such discourse? Or rather, dost thou not allow all that hear thee to think, that thou renouncest God and goodness, and never usest any serious worship of God at all? And if thou do pretend to worship him with that filthy tongue, what canst thou expect in answer to thy prayers, but a vengeance worse than Nadab and Abihu? Lev. x. 1-3. “Shall sweet water and bitter come from the same fountain ? “ James iii 11 Dost thou bless God, and talk filthily with the same tongue, and think he will not be avenged on thy hypocrisy?

Direction VII. Consider how thou biddest defiance also to common civility. Thou dost that which civil heathens would be ashamed of; as if thou hadst a design to reduce England to the customs of cannibals and savages in America, that go naked, and are past shame.

Direct. VIII. Observe what service thou dost the devil, for the corrupting of others, as if he had hired thee to be a tutor in his academy, or one of his preachers, to draw the minds of the hearers from modesty, and prepare them for the stews. Especially people can scarce have more dangerous wildfire cast into their fantasies, than by hearing rotten, filthy talk. And wilt thou be one of Venus’s priests?

Direction IX. Remember how little need there is of thy endeavour. Are not lust and filthiness so natural, and the minds of all unsanctified and uncleansed ones so prone to it, that they need no tutor, nor instigator, nor pander to their lusts? This fire is easily kindled; the bellows of thy scurrility are needless to make such gunpowder burn.

Direct. X. Presently lament before God and man the filthiness that thy tongue hath been guilty of, and wash heart and tongue in the blood of Christ; and fly from the company and converse of the obscene, as thou wouldst do from a pest-house, or any infectious, pestilential air. And if thou hear such rotten talk, reprove it, or be gone, and let them see that thou hatest it, and fearest God.

Objection: But, saith the filthy mouth, I think no harm; may we not jest and be merry?  Answer: What! hast thou nothing to jest with but dung, and filth, and sin, and the defilement of souls, and the offending of God P Wouldst thou be unclean before the king, or cast dung in men’s faces, and say, I think no harm, but am in jest?

Objection: But, saith he, those that are so demure, are as bad in secret, and worse than we. Answer: What! is a chaste tongue a sign of an unchaste life? Then thou mayst as equally take a meek and quiet tongue to be a sign of an angry man; or a lying tongue to be a sign of a true man. Would the king take that excuse from thee, if thou talk treason openly, and say, Those that do not, are yet in secret as bad as I? I trow he would not take that for an excuse.[30]

John Witherspoon:

“Is it a fable, or do I speak truth when I say, many children learn to swear before they learn to pray? It is indeed affecting to a serious mind to hear children lisping out ill-pronounced oaths, or scurrilous and scolding abuse, or even impurities which they do not understand; so that the first sentiments they form, and the first words they utter, are those of impiety, malice, or obscenity.”[31]

John Owen

“There are two things I shall speak to on this head:– 1. Wherein professors do mingle themselves with the world. 2. The danger of it.

“1. Professors mingle themselves with the world in that wherein it is the world, which is proper to the world. That which is more eminently and visibly of the devil, professors do not so soon mingle themselves withal; but in that wherein it is the world, in its own colours; — as in corrupt communication, which is, the spirit of the world, the extract and fruit of vanity of mind, — that wherewith the world is corrupted, and doth corrupt. An evil, rotten kind of communication, whereby the manners of the world are corrupted, — this comes from the spirit of the world. The devil hath his hand in all these things; but it is the world and the spirit of the world that is in corrupt communication. And how hath this spread itself among professors! Light, vain, foolish communication! — to spend a man’s whole life therein; not upon this or that occasion, but almost always, and upon all occasions everywhere!” Mr. Owen then proceeds to reprove the tendency of men to follow ridiculous fads of fashion, and then …

“2. Such a season is dangerous, because the sins of professors in it lie directly contrary to the whole design of the mediation of Christ in this world. Christ gave himself for us, that he might purge us from dead works, and purify us unto himself a peculiar people, Tit. ii. 14. “Ye are a royal nation, a peculiar people.” Christ hath brought the hatred of the devil and all the world upon him and against him, for taking a people out of the world, and making them a peculiar people to himself; and their throwing themselves upon the world again is the greatest contempt that can be put upon Jesus Christ. He gave his life and shed his blood to recover us from the world, and we throw ourselves in again. How easy were it to show that this is an inlet to all other sins and abominations, and that for which I verily think the indignation and displeasure of God will soonest discover itself against professors and churches in this day! If we will not be differenced from the world in our ways, we shall not long be differenced from them in our privileges. If we are the same in our walkings, we shall be so in our worship, or have none at all.”
Scriptures Pertaining to the Biblical Obligation to Purity of Speech

(Col 3:8 KJV) 8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

(Eph 4:29 KJV) 29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

(Mat 12:36-37 KJV) 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

(Eph 5:4 KJV) 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

(Mat 15:10-11 KJV) 10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

(Jas 1:26 KJV) 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion (is) vain.

(Pro 21:23 KJV) 23 Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue keepeth his soul from troubles.

(2Ti 2:16 KJV) 16 But shun profane (and) vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

(Jas 3:6 KJV) 6 And the tongue (is) a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

(Psa 19:14 KJV) 14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

(Luk 6:45 KJV) 45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

(Exo 20:7 KJV) 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

(Psa 141:3 KJV) 3 Set a watch, O LORD, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips.

(Pro 4:24 KJV) 24 Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.

(Psa 34:13-14 KJV) 13 Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.

(Pro 6:12 KJV) 12 A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth.

(Rom 12:2 KJV) 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what (is) that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

(Col 4:6 KJV) 6 Let your speech (be) alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

(Pro 18:21 KJV) 21 Death and life (are) in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.

(Mat 15:11 KJV) 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

(1Pe 3:10 KJV) 10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

(Psa 109:17 KJV) 17 As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.

(1Ti 4:12 KJV) 12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

(Tit 2:6-8 KJV) 6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded. 7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine (shewing) uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, 8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.

(Pro 8:13 KJV) 13 The fear of the LORD (is) to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

(Pro 10:31-32 KJV) 31 The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out. 32 The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked (speaketh) frowardness.

(Mat 12:36 KJV) 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

(Psa 34:13 KJV) 13 Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.

(Deu 5:11 KJV) 11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold (him) guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

(Psa 39:1 KJV) 1 ((To the chief Musician, (even) to Jeduthun, A Psalm of David.)) I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue: I will keep my mouth with a bridle, while the wicked is before me.

(1Th 5:22 KJV) 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

(Pro 15:4 KJV) 4 A wholesome tongue (is) a tree of life: but perverseness therein (is) a breach in the spirit.

(Mat 12:34-37 KJV) 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

(Psa 59:12 KJV) 12 (For) the sin of their mouth (and) the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying (which) they speak.

(1Pe 1:15 KJV) 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

(Psa 109:17-18 KJV) 17 As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. 18 As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.

(Mar 3:29 KJV) 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

(Jas 3:8 KJV) 8 But the tongue can no man tame; (it is) an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

(Jas 3:1-6 KJV) 1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. 2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same (is) a perfect man, (and) able also to bridle the whole body. 3 Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body. 4 Behold also the ships, which though (they be) so great, and (are) driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth. 5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! 6 And the tongue (is) a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

(Psa 109:28 KJV) 28 Let them curse, but bless thou: when they arise, let them be ashamed; but let thy servant rejoice.

(Tit 2:7-8 KJV) 7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine (shewing) uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, 8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.

(Mat 26:74 KJV) 74 Then began he to curse and to swear, (saying), I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

(Rom 3:13-18 KJV) 13 Their throat (is) an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps (is) under their lips: 14 Whose mouth (is) full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet (are) swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery (are) in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

(Mar 7:20-23 KJV) 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

(Mat 12:34 KJV) 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

(Rom 12:1-21 KJV) 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, (which is) your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what (is) that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

(Pro 10:31-32 KJV) 31 The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out. 32 The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked (speaketh) frowardness.

(ICor. 13:5 KJV) {Love} Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil.


[1] https://theocast.org/church-discernment-and-purity-culture/ Forget the presentation, and just scroll down to the citations from DW. As with much, if not most, Christian critique of Mr. Wilson, much is made of his audacity not to cower before woke egalitarian slave drivers, but there is plenty in these quotations to make the point that the man is profane.

[2] https://youtu.be/QzWZtqYxl4Y This video will be critiqued later in this article.

[3]https://youtu.be/Mb1on6Qln5c. Here is another: https://youtu.be/Ed3NVsq18Gk . These also will be critiqued later in this article.

[4] Of course, I haven’t read all Reformed literature, but it’s certainly true of that which I have read, which is fairly considerable. Luther pushed the limits here, but…. He was not Reformed.

[5] (Psa 19:14 KJV) (2Ti 2:16 KJV) (Eph 4:29 KJV) (Col 3:8 KJV) (Psa 34:13-14 KJV) (Pro 4:24 KJV) (Tit 2:7-8 KJV)   

[6]. Works, vol. 2, pg. 15-16. One might also look at Dabney’s Discussions, Vol.2, pgs. 569-572.

[7] https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/eph/5/4/t_conc_1102005

[8] https://youtu.be/Uya9IXpwy4I?t=192

[9] https://youtu.be/ftDEw8ZRa9o

[10] Mr. Wilson actually makes a case for this very blasphemy in another video found here: https://youtu.be/phe_ZzH0FfQ?t=408

[11] https://youtu.be/phe_ZzH0FfQ?t=456

[12] https://youtu.be/0tWQ_ox0ar8?t=1232

[13] https://youtu.be/0tWQ_ox0ar8?t=1651

[14] https://youtu.be/0tWQ_ox0ar8?t=1098

[15] https://youtu.be/QzWZtqYxl4Y

[16] https://youtu.be/hMZQLCMPi9k?t=809

[17] https://youtu.be/hMZQLCMPi9k?t=816

[18] https://youtu.be/Mb1on6Qln5c

[19] https://youtu.be/0tWQ_ox0ar8?t=1295

[20] https://youtu.be/0tWQ_ox0ar8?t=1600

[21] https://youtu.be/phe_ZzH0FfQ?t=487

[22] https://youtu.be/0tWQ_ox0ar8?t=1600

[23] https://youtu.be/phe_ZzH0FfQ?t=487

[24] https://youtu.be/0tWQ_ox0ar8?t=1295

[25] https://youtu.be/0tWQ_ox0ar8?t=1651

[26] Matthew Poole Bible Commentary, Eph.4:29 References mentioned: Col.4:6 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. Mk.9:50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another. Is.63:10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. Leave it to deluded moderns to turn the word “salty” into the exact opposite of it’s biblical usage.

[27] Matthew Henry Complete Commentary

[28] Calvin’s Commentary on Eph.4:29-31

[29] The Saints Hiding-Place in the Evil Day, Works, I. 407

[30] Richard Baxter, Christian Directory, Page 367

[31] “On the Religious Education of Children”