Is it “hateful” use the Bible’s tough language?

Ever since the Editor of the gay christian online magazine, Whosoever discovered GCM Watch had put her false doctrine on blast, she has been beating the bushes for her itching ear supporters to drop in and condemn our writing.  Claiming the predictable gcm line about not debating with “dogmatic” people, most showed up to point out how “unloving” and “hateful” we were.  Some needed to testify of just how good the good Rev. Chellew was to them.  Incidentally, she had a major breakdown over the misspelling of her last name, but oddly enough didn’t seem to mind that her doctrine was cancerous.

One commenter, David, objected to our use and application of Hebrews 12:4-12 where the Bible calls those who refuse the discipline of God and yet claim to be his children “bastards.” David explained that this is no longer appropriate language.  “Translators today” wouldn’t approve of this due to “added levels of insult” to the word, he said.   But does the word fit the sin? I believe it does. And since when do we drop what the Bible says because it offends someone? Jesus had an offensive ministry and spoke many offensive words causing many to walk away from him in disgust. In our view, David’s objections typify the gay christian movement’s aversion to anything which challenges their sin and false doctrine.

What’s even more shocking about the text is that God only disciplines those whom he loves. Thus, if one does not receive the Lord’s discipline, it is possible  there exists no love relationship between the two. We all know about agape, but God is 100% serious about obedience. Such discipline or chastisement is intended to produce holiness and righteousness. However, if one stubbornly continues in sexual immorality eshewing God’s discipline, they are bastard children and not in the family of God. To put it plainly, God is not their father.  That’s what the scriptures say. But is that too harsh to relay that message? Is it “hateful, disrespectful and unloving” to use as is?

This recent commentary by my friend J. Lee Grady at Charisma talks about how words are meant to say what needs to be said commensurate to the level of the sin’s severity. We should never sugar-coat the Bible’s language because a sin-riddled culture and sin-ladened religionists don’t like it.  Here’s what Lee writes:

The apostle Paul wrote the Bible’s most eloquent words about Christian love. But when it came to the subject of heresy, he went into verbal-attack mode. He labeled those who were spreading false doctrines “dogs” (Phil. 3:2) and “liars” (1 Tim. 4:2), and he not only labeled heretics publicly but “handed them over to Satan” in his prayers (see 1 Tim. 1:20). Doesn’t sound much like the sloppy agape love we often model today. Paul believed that if heresy goes unchecked it gnaws at the larger body of Christ and contaminates everyone. He warned his disciple Timothy that false teaching spreads “like gangrene” (2 Tim. 2:17). The King James Version says the words of false teachers “will eat as doth a canker.” The word “gangrene” can also be translated cancer. Modern translation: False doctrine is malignant. Get the tumor out before it kills people.

What is troubling me these days is that many American church leaders (and I am talking about my fellow charismatics and Pentecostals) are not displaying the necessary backbone to label a heretic a heretic. We have become masters at soft-pedaling and inaction when the Lord requires us to confront.

Case in point: Bishop Carlton Pearson, who was raised in the nation’s largest Pentecostal denomination (the Church of God in Christ) and who once served as an evangelist with the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association, began teaching what he calls “the gospel of inclusion” a few years ago. He has become a Universalist, claiming that people do not need Christian conversion in order to be saved by Christ.

Pearson’s deception has been widely reported.  Read Lee Grady’s entire column

4 thoughts on “Is it “hateful” use the Bible’s tough language?

  1. Yep, I get people claiming that my language is too rough and hateful and that “I am driving people away” and need to learn the language of brotherhood and love also. My reply: all I am doing is using the language that the Bible uses! I directly quote the words, sometimes I even quote phrases! But folks still reject it, unwilling to acknowledge that if they are rejecting what the Bible actually says in any context, they are rejecting the Bible itself and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit therewith.

  2. Perhaps David would feel better about the word illegitimate? An equally valid translation and the bottom line does not change; they are “not sons’. That in itself should cause one to reflect. I have come to realize just how much ‘feelings’ play a role in the gay christian crowd. Lest we offend with the clarity of scripture using such words; bastard, vomit, swine, pig, viper, abomination, must all be redefined or edited. It must be edited to make it mean something it clearly does not, after all, feelings are at stake, not one’s eternal salvation.

    v.6… “AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECIEVES” This verse must go! I simply will not tolerate your violent God DL! I won’t have it sir.

  3. Their whole point in not wanting to hear the plain unvarnished truth of God’s Word is to remove the conviction or condemnation they feel for what they are doing.

    Remove the conviction and they are free to “normalize” their sinful behavior.

    Those who are faithful to Christ and his word must develop some thick skins and learn to accept that the World will call us some very horrible things. But not to let their words cause us to waiver in our obedience to God.

    Bu remember we have not yet been brought to blood for Christ.

    God Bless

  4. Thanks, your remarks are true to what the Bible says. And Mark, yes I agree with you.

    David would you accept illegitmacy as a substitute? That doesnt mean that bastard is made obsolete, just that if your issue is the “harshness” of the word, then what about one that sin adequately explains the nature of the situation?

Comments are closed.