Is Vulgarity Pauline?
Is Vulgarity Pauline?
I became a Christian in 1979. Jimmy Carter was President of the US, and Ronald Regan was kicking o ff his presidential campaign. It was certainly a much different age than our present epicene monstrosity. At that time it was, of course, common for unconverted people to be profane in their speech, just as today. It’s exactly what we’d expect, because mankind, by nature is profane, and depraved, and therefore out of the abundance of such a heart, such a mouth speaks, and profanity is what you get from profane hearts. But what about those who profess to have been delivered from the dominion of Satan, and who’s hearts have been ostensibly transformed by the Redeeming power of the Holy Spirit, ordained to establish the saving purpose of a Sovereign Almighty Saviour? Would we not expect something vastly different?
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,
Clean mouth award goes to: 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”.
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 is shown the door if intractably impenitent, and is rather despised and resented to the degree that it brings sin into the light, and embarrasses the godless nature of those who thus expose the faithless principles that guide them. (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 professing 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] Durban here.[2] Driscoll, here.[3] Others will be considered.
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? Unless you are convinced that Jesus Christ is not omnipresent, then what else would account for any discrepancy of vocabulary? Have you any fear of God or faith in the bible’s testimony about Who, What, and Where He is?
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 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 amoral, 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 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.
It will be, perhaps, profitable at this point to advert to an example of this extenuated hypocrisy in the person of one 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?”, 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”.[6] 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”.
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?
A bit of summary. 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.”[7]
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.[8] 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?
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 good with evil? 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.
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) 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 egalitarian slave drivers, but there is plenty in these quotations to make the point that the man is profane.
[2] https://youtu.be/QzWZtqYxl4Y In this citation, Durbin starts out saying 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) 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 here: https://youtu.be/hMZQLCMPi9k?t=809 (“Right Response Ministries, :D) Here 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 scriptural command to be the necessary thing, and Durbin could always learn standard English.
[3]https://youtu.be/Mb1on6Qln5c This is not an example of Driscoll’s profanity, but of his defense of it, all of which is refuted in the pages that follow. Here is another: https://youtu.be/Ed3NVsq18Gk . What’s humorous about these defenses is that Driscoll is on his back foot, and uses none of the language he’s trying to justify as normal, though he goes way beyond the language of the scriptures he’s pretending to quote, and puts all sorts of crudeness in the mouth of apostles and prophets.
[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] https://youtu.be/Uya9IXpwy4I?t=192
[7]. Works, vol. 2, pg. 15-16. One might also look at Dabney’s Discussions, Vol.2, pgs. 569-572.
[8] https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/eph/5/4/t_conc_1102005
