# Minced Oaths



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 23, 2007)

It would be well for us all to consider whether we sometimes use minced oaths. 

There is a good article on the subject here.

Also worth reading is this thread on oaths and vows in the light of the third commandment.


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 14, 2008)

Joshua said:


> Question 113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
> 
> Answer: The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God's name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God's decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.
> [/INDENT]



Joshua,

Thanks for sharing this very valuable section of our Catechism.

I'd like to give a little background, and make some comments. I grew up Nazarene; Wesleyan Holiness, Sinless perfection, legalism and all.

When I became a Calvinist, I realized that many of the "sins" I grew up with were not, but were legalistic devices created to fill the antinomian vacuum. Also, real sins were voided because of the antinomianism.

That background in place, there are many things that we call "swearing" or "profanity" that are not. I will not mention these terms, but I will say that some of the Holy Ghost's language in Scripture would be considered profanity by a good Nazarene. My own opinion is that sometimes we focus on "profanity" and this causes us to take God's Name in vain by creating new laws. I don't think you're doing that, or that Andrew is, but I think there's a danger in condemning some of the language on the Wiki post (for instance), or being afraid to use such words in their proper context and for the right reasons.

Just some thoughts from a reforming Nazarene.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Herald (Dec 14, 2008)

Adam,

My counsel is to see the big picture in all of this. In general, does your speech display a love for God? If so, praise Him! How we act, in all facets of our life, displays the value we place in God. 

As a rule, when I find myself defending my "rights", I am usually on shaky ground. When it comes to our language, written or verbal, is it a matter of defending our right to use certain phrases or idioms, or using our words to bless others as a display of our love for God? Even when engaging in rebuke and correction our words should be tools of reconciliation and peace, not worthless or destructive.

Just some thoughts to ponder...


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 15, 2008)

Herald said:


> Adam,
> 
> My counsel is to see the big picture in all of this. In general, does your speech display a love for God? If so, praise Him! How we act, in all facets of our life, displays the value we place in God.
> 
> ...



Bill,

Thank you for the thoughts. Indeed, when we defend our "rights", we can often run into problems. What I often grapple with is defending God's definition of right vs. my perception of my "rights". Sometimes sinful human nature makes it a tough line to draw.

The point I was seeking to make above is that the super-holiness I grew up with is not holiness, but actually becomes an accusation against God's holiness by condemning language that God's Spirit uses in Scripture. To defend "my rights" in such a situation is subordinate to defending "God's right"; or, at least, ought to be.

Cheers,

Adam


----------

